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 .
Acknowledgments
Applicant filed information disclosure statement.
This Application is a continuation of Application 18954690.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Election/Restriction
Applicant elected claims 1-18 without traverse with respect to election/restriction requirement filed 2/26/2026.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-18 are directed to a system and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-18 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claim 10 recite the limitations of
…receiving…a pick-up location for a part; determining one or more part properties from an identification tag associated with the part to obtain additional information comprising an assembly-line location identifier associated with an assembly-line location for receiving the part and a delivery time for the part at the assembly-line location; and in response to receiving the one or more part properties, commencing execution of delivery of the part…to the assembly-line location to satisfy the delivery time.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of receiving/obtaining, determining, and commencing data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a system, the claim language encompasses simply receiving part pick up data, determining part properties, and commencing execution of delivering a part. These steps do not require a computer. For example, a user is able to receive and determine part information and deliver a part. The claimed invention is merely automating a manual process.
It is clear the limitations recite this abstract idea grouping, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of self-driving material transport vehicle, fleet management system, and system.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe details about the additional elements such as the vehicle. In addition, the dependent claims further describe variables about the executing the delivery such as departure time and pickup time.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 and10 recite
self-driving material transport vehicle
Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 recite fleet management system.
Claim 10 recites system and self-driving material transport vehicles.
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states a general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0040.
When looking at the additional elements in combination. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ames (US8010220B1) in further view of Stamm (US6705523B1).
Regarding claim 1 and similarly claim 10, Ames teaches
A method for…lineside parts delivery to an assembly-line process comprising a plurality of assembly-line locations (See col. A parts delivery management system and method that synchronizes production line side parts deliveries with a production schedule to facilitate delivering the right part to the right production line location at the right time.) This shows a method for part delivery in an assembly line.
A system of operating a plurality of…material-transport vehicles for…lineside parts delivery to an assembly-line process, the system comprising…material transport vehicle of the plurality of… material-transport vehicles, the…material transport vehicle having a processor configured to (See abstract- A parts delivery management system and method that synchronizes production line side parts deliveries with a production schedule to facilitate delivering the right part to the right production line location at the right time.) This teaches a system. The system includes plurality of material transport vehicles as seen in fig. 1. The system also includes a process as seen in item 100 of figure 1.
determining one or more part properties from an identification tag associated with the part to obtain additional information comprising an assembly-line location identifier associated with an assembly-line location (See col. 5-6-Each cart on a train 116, 118 has a CML that identifies the parts to be loaded on the cart and the delivery locations and times for the parts loaded on the cart.) This shows part properties such as part identification and delivery locations (i.e. part identifier) for the parts on the assembly line. This is information is received from the CML which corresponds to the identification tag.
for receiving the part and a delivery time for the part at the assembly-line location (See fig. 2) This shows the parts are received at an assembly line location such as a car assembly line. The parts have a delivery time such as information in the cml as seen above and item 208 fig. 2 which shows parts delivery time.
and in response to receiving the one or more part properties, commencing execution of delivery of the part by the…material transport vehicle to the assembly-line location to satisfy the delivery time. (See col 5-6- The scanned data are compared to the CML to confirm that the correct cart types have been linked for the planned parts delivery. The CML is then placed in a plastic sleeve on the cart to facilitate the selection or “picking” of parts and delivery of them to the production line.) After the CML data is received, execution is commenced to start picking and delivering the parts to the assembly location.
Even though Ames teaches selecting parts and delivering them to a location with respect to a material transport vehicle, it doesn’t teach it is done by an autonomous self-transport vehicle, however Stamm teaches autonomous…comprising: receiving, at a self-driving material transport vehicle, a pick-up location for a part (See col 2-3 The present invention is a system and method for delivering supplies from a loading dock to a production line using a supply delivery computer system-Autosend-that interfaces with a conveyor computer system that controls transportation of supplies from a conveyor system to pickup stations and a vehicle facility manager computer system that controls automated guided vehicles to transport supplies from pickup stations on the conveyor system to delivery stations on the production line.) This teaches automated guided vehicles which correspond to autonomous self-driving transport vehicles. The self-driving vehicle receives part pickup location as seen here (See fig. 1) (See col 6-7 The vehicle facility manager computer system 104 provides features and functionality related to control and operation of AGVs 130, 132 on the production facility floor. When the supply delivery computer 102 receives a supply request, it communicates with the vehicle facility manager computer system 104 to dispatch an AGV to a pickup station 110 on the conveyor system.) This shows information is received at the AGV such as a pickup location for the part which corresponds to the pickup station.
Ames and Stamm are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area of delivering and vehicles and both belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ames’s invention by incorporating the method of Stamm because Ames would also be able to implement self-driving vehicles This would help the art of Ames work more efficiently not having to rely on physical users to drive the carts as seen in fig. 2. Making the system of Ames more efficient would ensure that parts are delivered on time.
Regarding claim 2 and 11, Ames and Stamm teach the limitations of claim 1 and 10, however Ames further teaches
wherein determining the one or more part properties from the identification tag comprising receiving at least one part property from the identification tag. The CML (i.e. ID tag) contains part properties such as part identification and delivery times for the parts. (See col. Each cart on a train 116, 118 has a CML that identifies the parts to be loaded on the cart and the delivery locations and times for the parts loaded on the cart.)
Regarding claim 3 and 12, Ames and Stamm teach the limitations of claim 1 and 10, however Stamm further teaches
wherein receiving the pick-up location comprises receiving the pick-up location from a fleet-management system in communication with the self- driving material transport vehicle. (See fig. 1) The AGV receives the pickup location from a fleet management system such as from items 102 and 104 which are in communication with the AGV.
Ames and Stamm are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area of delivering and vehicles and both belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ames’s invention by incorporating the method of Stamm because Ames would also be able to implement self-driving vehicles This would help the art of Ames work more efficiently not having to rely on physical users to drive the carts as seen in fig. 2. Making the system of Ames more efficient would ensure that parts are delivered on time.
Regarding claim 4 and 13, Ames and Stamm teach the limitations of claim 1 and 10, however Stamm further teaches
wherein receiving the pick-up location comprises receiving a part identifier associated with the pick-up location from a fleet-management system in communication with the self-driving material transport vehicle. (See col 7-8- The supply delivery computer system 102 then sends a request to the vehicle facility manager computer system 104 to deliver the supply load from the pickup station 110 to a production line location. The supply delivery computer system 102 removes the supply load information from the ordered list (random access location list) and adds it to an AGV pickup list as the supply load is removed from the random access conveyor by transfer car or by conveyor forward movement (i.e., by outbound conveyor lanes in the event a transfer car is not needed to move the supply load to a pickup station). The supply load is then transferred to a pickup station 110. The supply delivery computer system 102 issues AGV job commands to the vehicle facility manager computer 104 which references AGV pickup station and production line delivery station locations. An AGV, using the AGV pickup list, receives the supplies from a pickup station 110 ) The AGV would receive the pickup list which is from requests from item 102 and 104 (i.e. fleet management system). The pickup list would have part identifier information (See fig. 3) on it so the AGV knows what parts it is picking up.
Ames and Stamm are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area of delivering and vehicles and both belong to G06Q10 classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ames’s invention by incorporating the method of Stamm because Ames would also be able to implement self-driving vehicles This would help the art of Ames work more efficiently not having to rely on physical users to drive the carts as seen in fig. 2. Making the system of Ames more efficient would ensure that parts are delivered on time.
Regarding claim 5 and 14, Ames and Stamm teach the limitations of claim 1 and 10, however Ames further teaches
determining a pick-up time for picking up the part from the pick-up location, the pick-up time being based on the assembly-line location and at least one of: the delivery time and at least one traffic condition. (See fig. 2, item 210 and 214) This shows the system determines a pick time for picking the part from the location. This pick time is based on the location in the assembly line since the art also deals with install time for the location (See col 5-6-Referring to FIG. 2, a schematic for calculating a dynamic train building schedule according to an example embodiment is shown. The production plan or schedule 200 indicates when various production lots are estimated to start. For example, production for the plan shown in FIG. 2 begins at 9:25 with Lot #102 at line location 10 204. The forecast time for the beginning of Lot #112 is 14:34 202. For each production line location, an estimated install time is determined) and delivery time (. Assuming a parts delivery time of 30 minutes ahead of the installation time of 15:10 results in a “cart delivery time” 208 calculation of 14:40. )
Regarding claim 6 and 15, Ames and Stamm teach the limitations of claim 1 and 10, however Ames further teaches
wherein commencing execution of the delivery of the party comprises: determining a departure time for the self-driving material transport vehicle based on the pick-up time and the one or more part properties. (Fig. 2 item 210 ) This teaches a departure timing such as dispatch timing which is based on pick up time such as “picking timing” and the time the parts needs to be delivered to the location such as item 208 which can also correspond to the part property.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ames (US8010220B1) in further view of Stamm (US6705523B1) in further view of Nusser (US9733646B1).
Regarding claim 7 and 16, Ames and Stamm teach the limitations of claim 1 and 10, however they do not teach
orienting the self-driving material transport vehicle at the pick-up location to receive the part.
However Nusser teaches orienting the self-driving material transport vehicle at the pick-up location to receive the part. (See col. However, it may be difficult for the central planning system to command robots with millimeter precision, unless the robots are bolted to rails or other measured components are used to precisely control robot positions. Local vision and planning for individual robotic devices may therefore be used to allow for elasticity between different robotic devices. A general planner may be used to get a robot close to a target location, at which point local vision of the robot may take over. In some examples, most robotic functions may be position-controlled to get the robots relatively close to target locations, and then vision and handshakes may be used when needed for local control. ) This shows controlling the vehicle position/orientation with respect to a target location which can include the pickup location.
Ames and Nusser are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area of delivering and vehicles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ames’s invention by incorporating the method of Nusser because Ames would also be able to implement self-driving vehicles This would help the art of Ames work more efficiently not having to rely on physical users to drive the carts as seen in fig. 2. Making the system of Ames more efficient would ensure that parts are delivered on time. Ames would also be able to control the vehicles to have them oriented the correct way to make the picking and delivering more efficient.
Regarding claim 8 and 17, Ames and Stamm teach the limitations of claim 1 and 10, however they do not teach
loading the part on the self-driving material transport vehicle using an apparatus of the self-driving material transport vehicle.
However Nusser teaches loading the part on the self-driving material transport vehicle using an apparatus of the self-driving material transport vehicle. (See fig. 2A) This shows a gripping component of the vehicle that can load the part.
Ames and Nusser are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area of delivering and vehicles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ames’s invention by incorporating the method of Nusser because Ames would also be able to implement self-driving vehicles This would help the art of Ames work more efficiently not having to rely on physical users to drive the carts as seen in fig. 2. Making the system of Ames more efficient would ensure that parts are delivered on time.
Regarding claim 9 and 18, Ames and Stamm teach the limitations of claim 1, however they do not teach
unloading the part at the assembly-line location using an apparatus of the self-driving material transport vehicle.
However Nusser teaches unloading the part at the assembly-line location using an apparatus of the self-driving material transport vehicle. (See fig. 2A) This shows the gripping component can unload a part and load it onto a truck.
Ames and Nusser are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area of delivering and vehicles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ames’s invention by incorporating the method of Nusser because Ames would also be able to implement self-driving vehicles This would help the art of Ames work more efficiently not having to rely on physical users to drive the carts as seen in fig. 2. Making the system of Ames more efficient would ensure that parts are delivered on time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Kurosu (4683540) Discloses a method and an apparatus for ordering a working operation in an assembly line having sublines in which parts for different models are assembled.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights