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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 1, it appears Applicant intended “wherein the number of the safety sensors” to read --wherein a number of the safety sensors--
In claim 4, line 2, it appears Applicant intended “is larger than the number of the safety sensors” to read --is larger than a number of the safety sensors--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Independent claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine), independent claim 18 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), and independent claim 19 is directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1, 18, and 19 are each within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, 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.
Independent claim 18 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The apparatuses of claims 1 and 19 mirror claim 18, and are analyzed similarly. Claim 18 recites:
A monitoring method comprising executing monitoring related to safety of a mobile body that moves within a manufacturing process, wherein an aspect of the monitoring is different between when the mobile body is in a first process and when the mobile body is in a second process.
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, “executing monitoring related to safety of a mobile body that moves within a manufacturing process, wherein an aspect of the monitoring is different between when the mobile body is in a first process and when the mobile body is in a second process” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing a mobile body moving between two tasks in a manufacturing process, in which an aspect of monitoring is different between the tasks. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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:
The “monitoring device” and “monitoring unit” of claim 1
The “system” of claim 19
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 employing various elements of “circuitry” for executing the monitoring, this merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental monitoring in a generic or general-purpose computational environment.
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 (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 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 18 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 circuitry to perform the monitoring… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of employing various elements of “circuitry” for executing the monitoring, is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as outlined in the prior art rejection(s) below. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-17 and 20 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. Said claims as a whole recite a mental process because the claims recite, under their broadest reasonable interpretation as drafted, determining whether communication is interrupted at a predetermined cycle, where the cycle differs between processes; monitoring with a safety sensor of the mobile body, where a degree of use of said sensor differs between processes; specifying that a number of safety sensors of the mobile body differs between processes; monitoring a motor torque of the mobile body for diagnosis based on degree of change in said motor torque, and where the allowable range differs between processes; monitoring an approach of an object to the mobile body using an external sensor, where a degree of use of the external sensor differs between processes; monitoring an approach of an object to the mobile body using an internal sensor, where a degree of use of the internal sensor differs between processes; monitoring a steering angle of the mobile body, where a control gain of the steering angle differs between processes; monitoring a steering angle of the mobile body for diagnosis based on an upper limit value of the steering angle, where the upper limit value differs between processes; monitoring a movement speed of the mobile body for diagnosis based on a maximum movement speed thresholds, where the maximum movement speed thresholds differ between processes; specifying that a degree of coexistence of the mobile body with a person differs between processes; specifying that a maximum movement speed of the mobile body differs between processes; specifying that a roaming frequency of the mobile body differs between processes; specifying that a number of sensors mounted on the mobile body differs between processes; specifying that a number of exterior components assembled to the mobile body differs between processes; specifying that the mobile body’s completeness differs between processes; and specifying that the mobile body moves indoors in the first process and outdoors in the second process. Therefore, dependent claims 2-17 and 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 18.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 14-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US PGPub. No. 2021/0397180) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 111930079A; see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses a monitoring device comprising a monitoring unit [Thomas 181, 182] configured to execute monitoring related to safety of a mobile body [Thomas 100] that is movable within a manufacturing process via unmanned driving (Thomas ¶0006, ¶0011-0014, ¶0041), but appears to be silent on the device further wherein an aspect of the monitoring of the monitoring unit when the mobile body is in a first process is different from an aspect of the monitoring of the monitoring unit when the mobile body is in a second process.
Zhang, however, teaches a dynamic data acquisition method for use in an automobile production line that dynamically updates data collection parameters across various stages of production (Zhang p. 5, par. 2-4, 8, and 10; p. 7, par. 3, 6, and 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Thomas in view of Zhang. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Thomas, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include wherein an aspect of the monitoring of the monitoring unit when the mobile body is in a first process is different from an aspect of the monitoring of the monitoring unit when the mobile body is in a second process, as doing so was a known way of accounting for dynamic production environmental conditions throughout a production line, as recognized by Zhang (Zhang p. 5, par. 2-4, 8, and 10; p. 7, par. 3, 6, and 11).
Regarding claim 3, Thomas in view of Zhang teaches the monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein:
the monitoring unit is configured to execute the monitoring by using a safety sensor [Thomas 130] mounted in the mobile body (Thomas ¶0010, ¶0014, ¶0043); and
the monitoring unit is configured to, in the second process, execute the monitoring by using the safety sensor with a higher degree of use than a degree of use of the safety sensor in the first process (Zhang p. 5, par. 3-4; p. 7, par. 3, 6, and 11).
Regarding claim 6, Thomas in view of Zhang teaches the monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein:
the monitoring unit is configured to monitor approach between the mobile body and an object outside the mobile body by using an external sensor [Thomas 30] located outside the mobile body (Thomas ¶0056-0058); and
the monitoring unit is configured to, in the first process, monitor the approach between the mobile body and the object outside the mobile body by using the external sensor with a higher degree of use than a degree of use of the external sensor in the second process (Zhang p. 5, par. 3-4; p. 7, par. 3, 6, and 11).
Regarding claim 7, Thomas in view of Zhang teaches the monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein:
the monitoring unit is configured to monitor approach between the mobile body and an object outside the mobile body by using an internal sensor [Thomas 130] mounted in the mobile body (Thomas ¶0010-0014, ¶0043); and
the monitoring unit is configured to, in the second process, monitor the approach between the mobile body and the object outside the mobile body by using the internal sensor with a higher degree of use than a degree of use of the internal sensor in the first process (Zhang p. 5, par. 3-4; p. 7, par. 3, 6, and 11).
Regarding claim 14, Thomas in view of Zhang teaches the monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein the number of sensors mounted in the mobile body is smaller in the first process than in the second process (Thomas ¶0006, ¶0015). Examiner notes that as Thomas’s vehicle progresses through various assembly zones, additional components and subassemblies are added that may include additional sensors.
Regarding claim 15, Thomas in view of Zhang teaches the monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein the number of exterior components assembled to the mobile body is smaller in the first process than in the second process (Thomas ¶0006, ¶0015). Examiner notes that as Thomas’s vehicle progresses through various assembly zones, additional components and subassemblies are added.
Regarding claim 16, Thomas in view of Zhang teaches the monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein:
the mobile body is not completed in the first process; and
the mobile body is completed in the second process (Thomas ¶0006, ¶0015). Examiner notes that as Thomas’s vehicle progresses through various assembly zones, additional components and subassemblies are added until the vehicle is eventually completed.
Regarding claim 18, Thomas in view of Zhang teaches a monitoring method comprising executing monitoring related to safety of a mobile body that moves within a manufacturing process, wherein an aspect of the monitoring is different between when the mobile body is in a first process and when the mobile body is in a second process (Thomas ¶0006, ¶0011-0014, ¶0041; Zhang p. 5, par. 2-4, 8, and 10; p. 7, par. 3, 6, and 11), as previously modified, and with the same motivation as applied in regard to claim(s) 1, above.
Regarding claim 19, Thomas in view of Zhang teaches a system that executes monitoring related to safety of a mobile body, the system comprising the mobile body that is movable within a manufacturing process via unmanned driving, wherein an aspect of the monitoring is different between when the mobile body is in a first process and when the mobile body is in a second process (Thomas ¶0006, ¶0011-0014, ¶0041; Zhang p. 5, par. 2-4, 8, and 10; p. 7, par. 3, 6, and 11), as previously modified, and with the same motivation as applied in regard to claim(s) 1, above.
Regarding claim 20, Thomas in view of Zhang teaches the system according to claim 19, wherein:
the system is configured to monitor approach between the mobile body and an object outside the mobile body by using an external sensor [Thomas 30] located outside the mobile body (Thomas ¶0056-0058) and an internal sensor [Thomas 130] mounted in the mobile body (Thomas ¶0010-0014, ¶0043); and
the system is configured to in the first process, monitor the approach between the mobile body and the object outside the mobile body by using the external sensor with a higher degree of use than a
degree of use of the external sensor in the second process (Zhang p. 5, par. 3-4; p. 7, par. 3, 6, and 11), and
in the first process, monitor the approach between the mobile body and the object outside the mobile body by using the internal sensor with a lower degree of use than a degree of use of the internal sensor in the second process (Zhang p. 5, par. 3-4; p. 7, par. 3, 6, and 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights