DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in response to the reply filed 31 May 2026, which was in response to the non-final action dated 30 March 2026.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, and 4-6 are pending. Claims 1, 4 and 5 have been amended, claims 2 and 3 have been canceled and claim 6 has been newly added.
With regard to the objection to the specification (pg. 3, Action), applicant’s amendment to the title render the objection moot. Accordingly, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation of the terms “an identifying unit that identifies” , and “an instruction unit for issuing at least one of an evacuation instruction ... and a skip instruction ...” (pgs. 3-5, Action), has been rendered moot by the amendment to claim 1. Accordingly, the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the aforementioned terms has been withdrawn.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 (pgs. 5-13, Action), applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1 requires “instruct[ing] a trailing moving body that trails the relevant moving body to make a degree of deceleration of the trailing moving body ... “. The examiner finds that the instructing step, along with the claim as a whole, is sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Thus, under Step 2A Prong two (see MPEP 2106), since the claim as a whole is fond to integrate the judicial exception into practical application, it is eligible at pathway B, thereby concluding the eligibility analysis. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1, 4 and 5, under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claim 2 has been rendered moot by cancelation.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-5 (pgs. 13-24, Action) applicant has amended independent claim 1, incorporating the subject matter of claims 2 and 3, thus rendering the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 4 and 5 moot. Applicant contends that the combination of Watkins, Tooyama, Shinagawa and Wang does not teach “a degree of deceleration of the trailing moving body smaller than a degree of deceleration of the “ preceding moving body. This contention is unpersuasive for the following reason.
Watkins at paragraph [0020] discloses that “the control system 100, generally known as ... collision avoidance, adaptive cruise control, cross-traffic monitoring, brake assist, distance control and emergency braking, for example, or other autonomous vehicle functionality that can facilitate a driverless vehicle progressing through an assembly line “ which under the broadest reasonable interpretation was interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as disclosing “a degree of deceleration to the trailing moving body smaller than a degree of deceleration of the trailing moving body smaller than a degree of deceleration of the moving body preceding the trailing moving body “. This is further supported by paragraph [0044] which discloses that “that radar sensor 104 may sense the distance between a vehicle and a station. The distance information is fed back through gateway 102 to control system 100, which provides a signal to the vehicle to cause it to speed up, slow down, stop, or start as needed, and position itself appropriately with respect to the station”. Further, Wang at paragraph [0050] discloses that the “braking system 224 of the vehicle 2 may be configured to positively reduce a traveling speed of the vehicle 2, and has main functions of slowing down or even stopping the traveling vehicle 2, and [0069] discloses that “at the end-of-line station 103, the assembled vehicle 2 carries the navigation device 11 while leaving the line, so that the navigation device 11 does not enter an assembly process of the next vehicle 2“ both of which under the broadest reasonable interpretation where interpreted as instructing a trailing moving body that trails the relevant moving body to enter a second vacant region caused by removal of the relevant moving body from the manufacturing line. Thus the combination of Watkins and Wang teaches the aforementioned limitations.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained. Based on the amendments the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are: claims 1 and 6 in view of Watkins, Tooyama, Shinagawa and Wang; claim 4 in view of Watkins, Tooyama, Shinagawa, Wang and Moliere; and claim 5 in view of Watkins, Tooyama, Shinagawa, Wang and Freire, as discussed below. The rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been rendered moot by their cancelation. Newly added claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Watkins, Tooyama, Shinagawa and Wang, as discussed below.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0156722 to Watkins et al. (hereafter Watkins) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2006/0161319 to Tooyama, U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0321693 to Shinagawa et al. (hereafter Shinagawa) and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0270337 to Wang et al. (hereafter Wang).
As per claim 1, Watkins discloses [a] device (see at least Watkins, Abstract) comprising:
a processor (see at least Watkins, [0017] disclosing that with regard to Fig. 1, control system 100 is configured to operate in a manner compatible with the vehicle manufacturing process. This includes physical components and positioning of control system 100 with respect to the vehicle, and its electronic and software application compatibility with those of the manufacturing process;. [0020] disclosing that any autonomous or driver assist technology that can facilitate a vehicle progressing through the assembly line may be incorporated into control system 100, including, for example, technology to guide, propel and stop the vehicle along the assembly line. More specifically, control system 100 may autonomously execute one or more of the following functions: steering, acceleration and deceleration; monitoring of the environment; and dynamic driving task fallback strategies; claim 1, disclosing a chassis, accelerator system, steering system, braking system, computer <interpreted as a processor>, and wheels to create a partially fabricating a vehicle; providing a control system in communication with the computer) configured to: ... (1) ... ,
in which the component line merges with the manufacturing line in an assembly area for executing assembly of the component to the moving body (see at least Watkins, [0059] disclosing that FIG. 4 is a schematic of an illustrative production layout 400. Area 402 is an assembly shop through which vehicles progress to various manufacturing stations along assembly line 404. Vehicle 406 advances through assembly line 404 and enters wheel installation station 410. Lift 408 elevates vehicle 406 to enable assembly line personnel or robotics to perform additional manufacturing steps. Vehicle 406 advances through additional portions of assembly line 404 and can then proceed further in an autonomous mode until all or most of the manufacture of the vehicle is complete, provided additional components have been installed to enable vehicle 406 to be self-driven),
issue an evacuation instruction for evacuating the relevant moving body from the manufacturing line by the unmanned driving, and a skip instruction for skipping the assembling to the relevant moving body (see at least Watkins, [0056] disclosing that production facilities may be configured such that a vehicle can be taken out of line and the remaining vehicles can continue cycling through production. This can be accomplished manually or control system 100 can be configured to recognize events that warrant removal of a vehicle from the assembly line and also to autonomously guide the vehicle away from the line. The control system may be configured so vehicles removed from the assembly line may be guided to a single location or to a location specific to the event that triggered the vehicle's removal. This will prevent production line down time ) ... (2) ... , ... (3) ... ; and
... (4) ... make a degree of declaration of the trailing moving body smaller than a degree of deceleration of the trailing moving body smaller than a degree of deceleration of the moving body preceding the trailing moving body so that the trailing moving body (see at least Watkins, [0020] disclosing that these capabilities may be incorporated into subsystems on control system 100, generally known as park assist, blind spot monitoring, lane-keeping assist or lane centering, collision avoidance, adaptive cruise control, cross-traffic monitoring, brake assist, distance control and emergency braking, for example, or other autonomous vehicle functionality that can facilitate a driverless vehicle progressing through an assembly line <in conjunction with the remining paragraphs interpreted as a degree of deceleration to the trailing moving body smaller than a degree of deceleration of the moving body preceding>; [0042]; [0044] disclosing that radar sensor 104 may sense the distance between a vehicle and a station. The distance information is fed back through gateway 102 to control system 100, which provides a signal to the vehicle to cause it to speed up, slow down, stop, or start as needed, and position itself appropriately with respect to the station; [0045]) ... (4) ... . But, Watkins does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Shinagawa.
(2) instruct first equipment to make a trailing component enter into a first vacant region caused by removal of the defective component from the component line (see at least Shinagawa, [0002] disclosing that a conventional assembly operation of an automobile, a connector component, such as a bolt, is welded to a workpiece that is constituted by a press-molded steel sheet or the like. This bolt or the like is transferred by a component transfer device; [0005] disclosing that power source is provided to discharge a defective component makes a device complicated. In addition, when a jam occurs in a transport path, the power source is actuated to remove a defective component. Consequently, transportation of components is stopped during a time of the jam, which may lead to a decrease in productivity) ... . But, neither Watkins nor Shinagawa explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Tooyama:
(1) identify, out of one or more moving bodies that move over a manufacturing line by unmanned driving, a relevant moving body to which a defective component that was evacuated from a component line, over which a plurality of components flows, is to be assembled (see at least Tooyama, [0048] disclosing that the judgment at the step ST15 is negative, the procedure is blanched to a step ST17 where the vehicle with defective AFS is removed from the vehicle production and assembly line for off-line repairing of the defective AFS. Then, at a step ST18, information concerning a fault or failure obtained during inspection with respect to the defective AFS is fed back to a relevant processing part or station of the vehicle production and assembly line for taking appropriate measures to remove the fault on a real-time basis) ... ;
(3) the trailing component trailing the defective component, and the first equipment being configured to change a position of each of the components flowing over the component line (see at least Tooyama, [0048]) ... . But, neither Watkins, Tooyama nor Shinagawa explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Wang:
(4) instruct a trailing moving body that trails the relevant moving body to ... enters a second vacant region caused by removal of the relevant moving body from the manufacturing line (see at least Wang, ([0026]; [0050] disclosing that the braking system 224 of the vehicle 2 may be configured to positively reduce a traveling speed of the vehicle 2, and has main functions of slowing down or even stopping the traveling vehicle 2, keeping the speed of the vehicle 2 traveling downhill stable, and keeping the stopped vehicle 2 stationary; [0067]; [0069] disclosing that the navigation device 11 of the embodiment of the present application may also not be separated from the assembled vehicle 2. Specifically, at the end-of-line station 103, the assembled vehicle 2 carries the navigation device 11 while leaving the line, so that the navigation device 11 does not enter an assembly process of the next vehicle 2. In this way, it is possible to increase the speed of the vehicle final assembly line 1 without repeatedly detaching the navigation device 11, thereby improving the production efficiency of the vehicle 2).
Watkins, Tooyama, Shinagawa and Wang are analogous art to claim 1 because they are in the same field of vehicle assembly. Watkins relates to the sequence of fabrication steps and incorporation of autonomous vehicle functions in the manufacturing and delivery process and configuration of assembly lines and facilities (see Watkins, [0001]). Tooyama relates to method of checking operation of an adaptive front lighting system (see at least Tooyama, [0001]). Shinagawa relates to a component transfer device (see at least Shinagawa, [0001]). Wang relates to a vehicle final assembly line (see at least Wang, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Watkins, to provide the benefit of (2) instructing first equipment to make a trailing component enter into a first vacant region caused by removal of the defective component from the component line, as disclosed in Shinagawa, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would be further be obvious to modify the device as disclosed in Watkins, as modified by Shinagawa, to provide the benefit of (1) identifying, out of one or more moving bodies that move over a manufacturing line by unmanned driving, a relevant moving body to which a defective component that was evacuated from a component line, over which a plurality of components flows, is to be assembled, and (3) having the trailing component trailing the defective component, and the first equipment being configured to change a position of each of the components flowing over the component line, a disclosed in Tooyama, with a reasonable expectations of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of saving time a expense by removing defective components before assembly is complete.
It would still further be obvious to modify the device, as disclosed in Watkins, as modified by Tooyama and Shinagawa, to provide the benefit of (4) instructing a trailing moving body that trails the relevant moving body and enter a second vacant region caused by removal of the relevant moving body from the manufacturing line, as disclosed in Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the further benefit of improving production efficiency (see at least Wang, [0069]).
As per claim 6, the combination of Watkins, Tooyama, Shinagawa and Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Wang further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the processor is mounted on at least one of the moving bodies (see at least Wang, [0043] disclosing that electric chassis 22 is provided with a navigation device 11 <interpreted as the processor>, and the navigation device 11 is configured to control the electric chassis 22; and Fig. 1 showing the navigation device 11 mounted on the moving body ).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins, Tooyama, Shinagawa and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2006/0231371 To Moliere et al. (hereafter Moliere).
As per claim 4, the combination of Watkins, Tooyama, Shinagawa and Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Tooyama further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the instruction unit issues an instruction to repair a defect of the defective component that was evacuated (see at least Tooyama, [0048] disclosing that if the judgment at the step ST15 is negative, the procedure is blanched to a step ST17 where the vehicle with defective AFS is removed from the vehicle production and assembly line for off-line repairing of the defective AFS. Then, at a step ST18, information concerning a fault or failure obtained during inspection with respect to the defective AFS is fed back to a relevant processing part or station of the vehicle production and assembly line for taking appropriate measures to remove the fault on a real-time basis. The step ST18 is particularly advantageous because if a fault detected by the step ST14 with respect to one AFS is due to faulty wiring, it will probably occur that all of the succeeding AFSs also have the same fault as they are produced in the same lot as the detected faulty AF) ... . But, neither Watkins, Tooyama, Shinagawa nor Wang explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Moliere:
when repair of the defect is complete, issues an instruction for causing equipment that is configured to enter a repaired component that is the component regarding which the repair is completed to the component line, to enter the repaired component to the component line, and an instruction for causing the relevant moving body evacuated by the evacuation instruction to enter the manufacturing line by the unmanned driving (see at least Moliere, [0027] disclosing that the advantage of having the mobile control unit attached removably to the transport device or to the vehicle or partially assembled vehicle is that the mobile control unit can remain with the vehicle if the vehicle has to be removed from the assembly line because a fault has been detected. The mobile control unit can then be deposited expediently in the vehicle, and because the equipment package intended for the vehicle in question is stored in the mobile control unit, the vehicle can easily be re-integrated in the production process--for instance, when the fault has been rectified. As a result, no special preparations need be made before returning a vehicle that was removed from the assembly line, providing the fault has been rectified).
Watkins, Tooyama, Shinagawa, Wang and Moliere are analogous art to claim 4 because they are in the same field of vehicle assembly. Watkins relates to the sequence of fabrication steps and incorporation of autonomous vehicle functions in the manufacturing and delivery process and configuration of assembly lines and facilities (see Watkins, [0001]). Tooyama relates to method of checking operation of an adaptive front lighting system (see at least Tooyama, [0001]). Shinagawa relates to a component transfer device (see at least Shinagawa, [0001]). Wang relates to a vehicle final assembly line (see at least Wang, [0002]). Moliere relates to a transport device for a motor vehicle or a partially assembled motor vehicle during the production process (see at least Moliere, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Watkins, as modified by Tooyama, and further modified by Shinagawa and Wang, to provide the benefit of issuing an instruction to repair a defect of the defective component that was evacuated and when repair of the defect is complete, causing equipment that is configured to enter a repaired component that is the component regarding which the repair is completed to the component line, to enter the repaired component to the component line, as further disclosed in Tooyama, and causing the relevant moving body evacuated by the evacuation instruction to enter the manufacturing line by the unmanned driving, as disclosed in Moliere, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of obviating the necessity of removing the vehicle from the assembly line for the purposes of corrective action (see Moliere, [0009]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins, Tooyama, Shinagawa and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moliere and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0024041 to Freire et al. (hereafter Freire).
As per claim 5, the combination of Watkins, Tooyama, Shinagawa and Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Tooyama further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the instruction unit issues an instruction to repair a defect of the defective component that was evacuated (see at least Tooyama, [0048]) ... . But, neither Watkins, Tooyama, Shinagawa nor Wang explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Moliere:
when repair of the defect is complete, issues an instruction for moving a repaired component that is the component regarding which the repair is completed, ... , and an instruction for assembling the repaired component to the relevant moving body (see at least Moliere, [0027]). But, neither Watkins, Shinagawa, Tooyama, Wang nor Moliere explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Freire:
... moving the repaired component ... toward the relevant moving body using a device different from the component line (see at least Freire, Fig 1, showing robot 160; [0053] disclosing that at a second downstream station, after several other assembly operations have been performed on the vehicle body, an industrial robot <interpreted as a device different from the component> picks and removes the door from the door holding fixture and, again using a method as disclosed above, the same robot re-assembles it on the vehicle body, e.g. on the vehicle body hinges).
Watkins, Tooyama, Shinagawa, Wang, Moliere and Freire are analogous art to claim 5 because they are in the same field of vehicle assembly. Watkins relates to the sequence of fabrication steps and incorporation of autonomous vehicle functions in the manufacturing and delivery process and configuration of assembly lines and facilities (see Watkins, [0001]). Tooyama relates to method of checking operation of an adaptive front lighting system (see at least Tooyama, [0001]). Moliere relates to a transport device for a motor vehicle or a partially assembled motor vehicle during the production process (see at least Moliere, [0001]). Shinagawa relates to a component transfer device (see at least Shinagawa, [0001]). Wang relates to a vehicle final assembly line (see at least Wang, [0002]). Freire relates to an assembly unit or system for performing an assembling operation on a part having a target for the assembling operation (see at least Freire, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Watkins, as modified by Tooyama, Shinagawa and Wang, to provide when repair of the defect is complete, an instruction for moving a repaired component that is the component regarding which the repair is completed, toward the relevant moving body using a device different from the component line, and an instruction for assembling the repaired component to the relevant moving body, as disclosed in Moliere and Freire, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of obviating the necessity of removing the vehicle from the assembly line for the purposes of corrective action (see Moliere, [0009]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;30 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/PATRICK M BRADY/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights