Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “obtain an expected force for the interface indicating a current stage of assembly of the product” (emphasis added); however, the specification discloses that the stage determines the expected force. (see at least ¶59) For purposes of compact prosecution and examination the limitation was interpreted as “obtain an expected force for the interface --based on-- a current stage.”
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-7 is/are directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical concept and a mental process. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) recite(s) receive sensor inputs, calculate an expected force and compare the expected force to a sensed force, and output data. The rejected dependent claims only supply additional steps (mathematical calculations, and mental processes) that a processor must perform. All of these concepts relate to the abstract idea of certain methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes. The concept described in claims 1-7 is/are not meaningfully different than those methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claims 1-7 is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The hardware is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components that perform the generic functions of [e.g. "transmitting information", "generating information"] common to electronics and computer systems does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation (i.e. mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing system).
Claims 1-7 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa et al (US Patent Publication 2019/0384280) in view of Hatano et. al. (US Patent Publication 2025/0091671).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, Osawa discloses 1. A manufacturing system, comprising: a vehicle, comprising: a chassis; (Fig 2; ¶42)
an interface coupled to the chassis and configured to support at least a portion of a product; and (¶42)
a sensor coupled to the interface and configured to provide sensor data indicating a measured force on the interface; and (¶42)
a controller configured to: receive sensor data provided by the sensor indicating the measured force; (¶52, 114)
receive an indication
compare the measured force with the expected force; and (¶73, 114)
in response to a determination that the measured force differs from the expected force, provide a notification to a user. (¶80, 90)
Osawa discloses the control unit monitoring the load amount while the cargo loading is ongoing, but appears to be silent as to of a current stage of assembly of the product; determine an expected force on the interface based on the current stage of assembly of the product.
Hatano however teaches receive an indication of a current stage of assembly of the product; determine an expected force on the interface based on the current stage of assembly of the product. (¶73, 104-106)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Osawa with the control unit monitoring the load amount while the cargo loading is ongoing, but appears to be silent as to of a current stage of assembly of the product; determine an expected force on the interface based on the current stage of assembly of the product as taught by Hatano with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 2, Osawa appears to be silent as to wherein the interface is a first interface, the sensor is a first sensor, the sensor data is first sensor data, and the measured force is a first measured force, wherein the vehicle further comprises: a second interface coupled to the chassis and configured to support a second portion of the product; and a second sensor coupled to the second interface and configured to provide second sensor data indicating a second measured force on the second interface. Nevertheless the limitation would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing as mere duplication of parts. (See MPEP 2144.04 VI)
Regarding claims 3, and 14, Osawa further discloses wherein the vehicle is a first vehicle, the chassis is a first chassis, the interface is a first interface, the sensor is a first sensor, the sensor data is first sensor data, and the measured force is a first measured force, further comprising a second vehicle comprising: a second chassis; a second interface coupled to the second chassis and configured to support a second portion of the product; and a second sensor coupled to the second interface and configured to provide second sensor data indicating a second measured force on the second interface. (¶38)
Regarding claims 6, and 10, Osawa further discloses wherein the vehicle is configured to move the product from a current station to a next station. (Fig 6; ¶71-78)
Regarding claims 11, and 17, Owawa further discloses wherein the control action comprises at least one of providing a notification to a user or adjusting an operating parameter of the vehicle. (¶80-90)
Regarding claims 12, and 19, Osawa further discloses wherein the operating parameter comprises at least one of a speed, a direction of travel, or an acceleration of the vehicle. (¶53)
Regarding claim 13, Osawa further discloses wherein the sensor is at least one of a force sensor, a current sensor, a voltage sensor, or a pressure sensor configured to provide an indication of a force of the product at the interface, the controller configured to use the indication to determine the force on the interface. (¶42, 54)
Regarding claim 16, Hatano teaches training a controller by: simulating a production line for each product configuration; receiving sensor data indicating the expected force at each stage of production; and storing, in a memory of the controller, a range of the expected force at each stage of production. (¶106)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Osawa with training a controller by: simulating a production line for each product configuration; receiving sensor data indicating the expected force at each stage of production; and storing, in a memory of the controller, a range of the expected force at each stage of production as taught by Hatano with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7-8, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious.
4. The manufacturing system of claim 3, wherein:the first measured force is at least one of a normal force of the product on the first interface or a weight of the product on the first interface; andthe second measured force is at least one of a normal force of the product on the second interface or a weight of the product on the second interface.
5. The manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to:determine a measured center of gravity of the product using the measured force;determine an expected center of gravity of the product based on the current stage of assembly of the product;compare the measured center of gravity with the expected center of gravity; andin response to a determination that the measured center of gravity differs from the expected center of gravity, provide a notification to the user.
7. The manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein:the notification comprises a prediction identifying a source of the difference between the measured force and the expected force; and the source is at least one of the product is missing an expected component, the product has an additional component that should be absent from the product, or the product has a component installed in a wrong location.
8. The manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein, in response to the determination that the measured force differs from the expected force, the controller is further configured to:limit movement of the vehicle from a current station to a next station; or operating the vehicle to transport out of the manufacturing system.
20. The method of claim 15, in response to a determination that the measured force differs from the expected force, the method further comprises:limiting movement of the vehicle from a current station to a next station; or operating the vehicle to transport out of a production line
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN D HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8413. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Mon-Thur.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/ALAN D HUTCHINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights