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 .
This is a Non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim of priority for foreign application JP2023-218056, filed 12/25/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0057] recites “Since the torque needed for the vehicle 100 to travel varies in accordance with the change in the state of the vehicle 100”, which appears to be an incomplete sentence.
[0108] recites “…may be difference…”, in which the underlined portion appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
the process acquisition unit in claims 1-7 (See at least [0061], [0090] & [0096] for corresponding structure):
“…configured to acquire process information on a process as a target among the processes for the vehicle…”
the torque acquisition unit in claims 1-7 (See at least [0044], [0061] & [0090] for corresponding structure):
“…configured to acquire torque information on an output torque of the vehicle in the process as the target…”
the detection unit in claims 1-7 (See at least [0044] & [0114] for corresponding structure):
“…configured to acquire process information on a process as a target among the processes for the vehicle…”
the control instruction generation unit in claim 6 (See at least [0040] for corresponding structure):
“…configured to generate a control instruction for remotely controlling driving of the vehicle and transmit the generated control instruction to the vehicle…”
the notification unit in claim 7 (See at least [0115] for corresponding structure):
“…configured to, when the detection unit detects the abnormality in the output torque of the vehicle, notify the vehicle that the abnormality in the output torque of the vehicle is detected”
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee of KR102179597B1, published 11/17/2020, hereinafter “Lee”, in view of Ono of JP 2017008849 A, published 01/12/2017, hereinafter “Ono”.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches:
A monitoring device that, in a factory in which a plurality of processes for manufacturing a vehicle that travels via unmanned driving is performed, monitors the vehicle that is an object of the processes, the monitoring device comprising: (See at least [0005]: “…a process automatic recognition-based diagnostic device that automatically performs diagnosis and inspection required in each process of manufacturing a vehicle or various products, for example, in a manufacturing plant through location recognition…”)
a process acquisition unit configured to acquire process information on a process as a target among the processes for the vehicle; (See at least [0032]: “…the diagnostic device (100) automatically recognizes which process stage a vehicle on the conveyor is in through location recognition, and recognizes each process based on the result of the vehicle location recognition, and performs inspection and diagnosis corresponding thereto. Of course, since data for each process is pre-stored by distance, when distance information is measured as a recognition result, it is compared with the pre-stored data, and when it matches the distance information of each process, the process of the matching step is automatically performed…”)
Lee does not explicitly teach:
a torque acquisition unit configured to acquire torque information on an output torque of the vehicle in the process as the target; and
a detection unit configured to detect an abnormality in the output torque of the vehicle by using the process information and the torque information.
Ono teaches:
a torque acquisition unit configured to acquire torque information on an output torque of the vehicle in the process as the target; and (See at least [0035]: “Block 111 is a block of estimated generated torque calculation means (estimated operating state change amount calculation section) that calculates estimated generated torque from the engine speed and engine load described above. This estimated generated torque calculation means 111 also calculates the amount of change in estimated generated torque for abnormality detection, which will be described later. The estimated generated torque is an estimate of the torque generated by the engine” & [0121]: “Next, in step 1806, the estimated torque to be generated is calculated…in steps 1807 to 1810, the amounts of change in estimated generated torque (Δ40ET, Δ80ET, Δ120ET, Δ160ET) over 40 ms, 80 ms, 120 ms, and 160 ms are calculated, respectively…”)
a detection unit configured to detect an abnormality in the output torque of the vehicle by using the process information and the torque information. (See at least [0124]: “In step 1901, it is checked whether the difference between the amount of change in estimated generated torque (Δ40ET) over 40 ms and the amount of change in allowable generated torque (Δ40LT) is greater than a predetermined judgment threshold (KD40H). If the check result is YES, the process proceeds to step 1902, where the counter (CN40H) is counted up. Thereafter, in step 1904, it is checked whether the counter (CN40H) is equal to or greater than a predetermined counter threshold (KCN40H) for counter checking. If the check result is Yes, the abnormality flag (FLCN40HNG) is set to 1 in step 1905…”. See also Fig. 9B & [0077].)
Although Ono does not explicitly teach a vehicle manufacturing process, Ono does teach that changes in vehicle condition, such as vehicle weight, require adjusting the judgement threshold value used for comparing the estimated generated torque with an allowable generated torque: “…if the vehicle condition changes, mainly if the vehicle weight or the vehicle's driving environment (the gradient of the road) changes, the above-mentioned judgment threshold can be modified to accurately determine abnormalities” (See at least [0085-0086] of Ono). [0068] of the instant specification demonstrates a similar relationship between a torque threshold and vehicle weight, except in a manufacturing process: “…Therefore, as the components are assembled, the weight of vehicle 100 is increased. Therefore, in the process at which the vehicle 100 is located, that is, the torque needed for the vehicle 100 to travel varies depending on the weight of the vehicle 100… in order to respond to the change in the weight of the vehicle 100, a different value is set for each process as the threshold value of the torque of the vehicle 100”. Since Ono addresses a similar problem as the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Ono to a manufacturing process, such as that of Lee, with the benefit of “improv[ing] the accuracy of abnormality judgment” in a manufacturing process (See at least [0171] of Ono).
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Lee’s monitoring device used in vehicle manufacturing with Ono’s technique of acquiring torque information on an output torque of the vehicle in the process as the target and detecting an abnormality in the output torque of the vehicle by using the process information and the torque information. Doing so would be obvious “to improve the accuracy of abnormality judgment” in a manufacturing process (See at least [0171] of Ono).
Regarding claim 2, Lee and Ono in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ono additionally teaches:
wherein the detection unit is configured to detect the abnormality in the output torque based on the output torque of the vehicle represented by the torque information, the process represented by the process information, and a torque-related criterion set in association with the process. (See at least [0124]: “In step 1901, it is checked whether the difference between the amount of change in estimated generated torque (Δ40ET) over 40 ms and the amount of change in allowable generated torque (Δ40LT) is greater than a predetermined judgment threshold (KD40H). If the check result is YES, the process proceeds to step 1902, where the counter (CN40H) is counted up. Thereafter, in step 1904, it is checked whether the counter (CN40H) is equal to or greater than a predetermined counter threshold (KCN40H) for counter checking. If the check result is Yes, the abnormality flag (FLCN40HNG) is set to 1 in step 1905…”)
Regarding claim 3, Lee and Ono in combination teach all the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above.
Ono additionally teaches:
wherein: a threshold value of the output torque in the process is set as the torque-related criterion; and (See at least [0126]: “…The determination threshold value (KD40L) here is set to be smaller than the determination threshold value (KD40H) used in step 1901. This is because the judgment threshold value (KD40H) in step 1901 is set to reliably detect an abnormal state, and the judgment threshold value (KD40L) in step 1907 is set to make a judgment when an abnormality has occurred but it is difficult to determine whether the state is normal.”)
the detection unit is configured to, when a value of the output torque is greater than the threshold value of the output torque, determine that there is the abnormality in the output torque of the vehicle. (See at least [0124]: “In step 1901, it is checked whether the difference between the amount of change in estimated generated torque (Δ40ET) over 40 ms and the amount of change in allowable generated torque (Δ40LT) is greater than a predetermined judgment threshold (KD40H). If the check result is YES, the process proceeds to step 1902, where the counter (CN40H) is counted up. Thereafter, in step 1904, it is checked whether the counter (CN40H) is equal to or greater than a predetermined counter threshold (KCN40H) for counter checking. If the check result is Yes, the abnormality flag (FLCN40HNG) is set to 1 in step 1905…”)
Regarding claim 4, Lee and Ono in combination teach all the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above.
Lee and Ono in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein, as a first threshold value of the output torque set for a first process among the processes, a value smaller than a second threshold value of the output torque set for a second process that is performed later than the first process is set.
However, Ono does teach detecting an abnormality if the difference between the change in estimated generated torque and the change in allowable generated torque exceeds the judgment threshold, and, if the vehicle weight changes (i.e., from a “first process” to a “second process”), then the judgment threshold can be adjusted accordingly to improve the accuracy of detecting the abnormality (See at least [0075], [0077], [0080] & [0085-0090]). [0120]). Since the judgment threshold changes based on changes in vehicle weight, the combination of Lee and Ono render obvious a lower threshold value for a first process and a higher threshold value for a second, later process, which provides the benefit of “if the vehicle condition changes, mainly if the vehicle weight or the vehicle's driving environment (the gradient of the road) changes, the above-mentioned judgment threshold can be modified to accurately determine abnormalities” (See [0086] of Ono).
Regarding claim 5, Lee and Ono in combination teach all the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above.
Ono additionally teaches:
wherein the torque-related criterion is a criterion related to a waveform representing the output torque acquired in time series. (See at least Figs. 9A-9B & [0075-0076]: “A judgment threshold 1 line 907 is a judgment threshold 1 for detecting an abnormality, and if the time period during which the judgment threshold 1 is exceeded continues for a predetermined time or longer, it is judged to be abnormal…An estimated generated torque line 913 shows the behavior of the estimated generated torque, and it can be seen from FIG. 9B that the estimated generated torque is in a state where it increases from time A due to the occurrence of an abnormality.”)
Regarding claim 7, Lee and Ono in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ono additionally teaches:
further comprising a notification unit configured to, when the detection unit detects the abnormality in the output torque of the vehicle, notify the vehicle that the abnormality in the output torque of the vehicle is detected. (See at least [0124]: “In step 1901, it is checked whether the difference between the amount of change in estimated generated torque (Δ40ET) over 40 ms and the amount of change in allowable generated torque (Δ40LT) is greater than a predetermined judgment threshold (KD40H). If the check result is YES, the process proceeds to step 1902, where the counter (CN40H) is counted up. Thereafter, in step 1904, it is checked whether the counter (CN40H) is equal to or greater than a predetermined counter threshold (KCN40H) for counter checking. If the check result is Yes, the abnormality flag (FLCN40HNG) is set to 1 in step 1905…”)
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches:
A method of, in a factory in which a plurality of processes for manufacturing a vehicle that travels via unmanned driving is performed, monitoring the vehicle that is an object of the processes, the method comprising: (See at least [0005]: “…a process automatic recognition-based diagnostic device that automatically performs diagnosis and inspection required in each process of manufacturing a vehicle or various products, for example, in a manufacturing plant through location recognition…”)
acquiring process information on a process as a target among the processes for the vehicle; (See at least [0032]: “…the diagnostic device (100) automatically recognizes which process stage a vehicle on the conveyor is in through location recognition, and recognizes each process based on the result of the vehicle location recognition, and performs inspection and diagnosis corresponding thereto. Of course, since data for each process is pre-stored by distance, when distance information is measured as a recognition result, it is compared with the pre-stored data, and when it matches the distance information of each process, the process of the matching step is automatically performed…”)
Lee does not explicitly teach:
acquiring torque information on an output torque of the vehicle in the process as the target; and
detecting an abnormality in the output torque of the vehicle by using the process information and the torque information.
Ono teaches:
acquiring torque information on an output torque of the vehicle in the process as the target; and (See at least [0035]: “Block 111 is a block of estimated generated torque calculation means (estimated operating state change amount calculation section) that calculates estimated generated torque from the engine speed and engine load described above. This estimated generated torque calculation means 111 also calculates the amount of change in estimated generated torque for abnormality detection, which will be described later. The estimated generated torque is an estimate of the torque generated by the engine” & [0121]: “Next, in step 1806, the estimated torque to be generated is calculated…in steps 1807 to 1810, the amounts of change in estimated generated torque (Δ40ET, Δ80ET, Δ120ET, Δ160ET) over 40 ms, 80 ms, 120 ms, and 160 ms are calculated, respectively…”)
detecting an abnormality in the output torque of the vehicle by using the process information and the torque information. (See at least [0124]: “In step 1901, it is checked whether the difference between the amount of change in estimated generated torque (Δ40ET) over 40 ms and the amount of change in allowable generated torque (Δ40LT) is greater than a predetermined judgment threshold (KD40H). If the check result is YES, the process proceeds to step 1902, where the counter (CN40H) is counted up. Thereafter, in step 1904, it is checked whether the counter (CN40H) is equal to or greater than a predetermined counter threshold (KCN40H) for counter checking. If the check result is Yes, the abnormality flag (FLCN40HNG) is set to 1 in step 1905…”. See also Fig. 9B & [0077].)
Although Ono does not explicitly teach a vehicle manufacturing process, Ono does teach that changes in vehicle condition, such as vehicle weight, require adjusting the judgement threshold value used for comparing the estimated generated torque with an allowable generated torque: “…if the vehicle condition changes, mainly if the vehicle weight or the vehicle's driving environment (the gradient of the road) changes, the above-mentioned judgment threshold can be modified to accurately determine abnormalities” (See at least [0085-0086] of Ono). [0068] of the instant specification demonstrates a similar relationship between a torque threshold and vehicle weight, except in a manufacturing process: “…Therefore, as the components are assembled, the weight of vehicle 100 is increased. Therefore, in the process at which the vehicle 100 is located, that is, the torque needed for the vehicle 100 to travel varies depending on the weight of the vehicle 100… in order to respond to the change in the weight of the vehicle 100, a different value is set for each process as the threshold value of the torque of the vehicle 100”. Since Ono addresses a similar problem as the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Ono to a manufacturing process, such as that of Lee, with the benefit of “improv[ing] the accuracy of abnormality judgment” in a manufacturing process (See at least [0171] of Ono).
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Lee’s method used in vehicle manufacturing with Ono’s technique of acquiring torque information on an output torque of the vehicle in the process as the target and detecting an abnormality in the output torque of the vehicle by using the process information and the torque information. Doing so would be obvious “to improve the accuracy of abnormality judgment” in a manufacturing process (See at least [0171] of Ono).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ono and further in view of Thomas of US 20210397178 A1, filed 02/02/2021, hereinafter “Thomas”.
Regarding claim 6, Lee and Ono in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ono additionally teaches:
wherein: the detection unit is configured to, when the abnormality in the output torque of the vehicle is detected, notify the control instruction generation unit that the abnormality in the output torque is detected; and (See at least [0124]: “In step 1901, it is checked whether the difference between the amount of change in estimated generated torque (Δ40ET) over 40 ms and the amount of change in allowable generated torque (Δ40LT) is greater than a predetermined judgment threshold (KD40H). If the check result is YES, the process proceeds to step 1902, where the counter (CN40H) is counted up. Thereafter, in step 1904, it is checked whether the counter (CN40H) is equal to or greater than a predetermined counter threshold (KCN40H) for counter checking. If the check result is Yes, the abnormality flag (FLCN40HNG) is set to 1 in step 1905...”)
the control instruction generation unit is configured to, when being notified of the abnormality in the output torque, generate the control instruction to stop the vehicle or to reduce a traveling speed of the vehicle to a speed lower than a current speed. (See at least [0049]: “In the event of an abnormality, the electronic throttle motor 204 is driven so that the throttle valve moves in a direction that suppresses the output of the engine 201, or fail-safe processing is executed to mechanically operate the throttle valve by stopping the driving of the electronic throttle motor 204.”)
Lee and Ono in combination do not explicitly teach:
further comprising a control instruction generation unit configured to generate a control instruction for remotely controlling driving of the vehicle and transmit the generated control instruction to the vehicle,
Thomas teaches:
further comprising a control instruction generation unit configured to generate a control instruction for remotely controlling driving of the vehicle and transmit the generated control instruction to the vehicle, (See at least [0053]: “…Particularly, and for a MVS 100a in assembly zone 230, the onboard controller 120 (FIG. 1) of the MVS 100a is in communication with the zone controller 183 via the onboard communications link 122 and the zone controller communications link 183b. In at least one variation, the zone controller 183 uses a dual band or dual channels to transmit and receive instructions and data and thereby remotely control the MVS 100a…”. See also [0069].)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Lee and Ono’s monitoring device with Thomas’s technique of generating a control instruction for remotely controlling driving of the vehicle and transmitting the generated control instruction to the vehicle. Doing so would be obvious “for remote control movement of the MVSs moving through the plurality of assembly zones” (See [0013] of Thomas).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160068067 A1 is directed to determining that a torque anomaly has occurred based on an acceptable torque template.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikki Molina whose telephone number is (571) 272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT. 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, Aniss Chad, can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662