T 0212/20 (Product and factory configuration/SIEMENS) 22-07-2022
Download and more information:
AUTOMATED CONFIGURATION OF FACTORIES BASED ON THE CONFIGURATION OF PRODUCTS TO BE MANUFACTURED
I. This case concerns the applicant's appeal against the examining division's decision to refuse European patent application No. 16 751 186.4.
II. The application was refused on the grounds of lack of clarity (Article 84 EPC) and lack of novelty (Article 54 EPC) in view of US 2010/0138017 (D1).
III. In the statement setting out the grounds of appeal, the appellant requested that the decision of the examining division be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the refused sole request, comprising a single claim. The appellant also requested oral proceedings to be held before any adverse decision.
IV. In the communication accompanying the summons to oral proceedings, the Board set out its preliminary view that claim 1 of the sole request lacked novelty.
V. Oral proceedings were held as a videoconference on 22 July 2022. Since nobody appeared for the appellant, the registrar contacted the representative by telephone. He indicated that he could not attend the oral proceedings due to technical problems, and that he relied on his written submissions without any further comment. A postponement of the oral proceedings was not requested.
VI. Claim 1 of the sole request reads:
"Method for integrated modeling of products and factories for smart configuration of a production environment by use of a computer program comprising steps of:
- configuration of products by end-user
- configuration of a product line in a factory
- configuration of a production process in a product line
characterized in that the steps of configuration of products, configuration of a product line and the configuration of a production process are linked in a manner, that the knowledge from one configuration process is passed to the others."
VII. The appellant's arguments can be summarised as follows:
Since the control process of D1 starts with the reception of an order from an external source, it cannot include the configuration of the product by an end-user. D1 discloses neither configuring the product using a computer program, nor utilising the associated configuration parameters in the manufacturing process.
Background
1. The invention concerns the automated configuration of factories based on customer orders. The production of highly customisable products generally requires a continuous reorganisation of factory lines and processes, which can pose significant challenges for factory operators (see page 1, lines 4 to 27). The goal of the invention is to facilitate the reconfiguration through synchronised modelling of both product and factory. After a customer has configured a product to be ordered, the product configuration data are used by a factory configuration process to automatically reconfigure the physical factory set-up and the various production processes, so that the required product variant can be manufactured (see page 1, line 28 to page 2, line 34).
Interpretation of claim 1
2. The Board interprets the expression "the steps of configuration of products, configuration of a product line and the configuration of a production process are linked in a manner, that the knowledge from one configuration process is passed to the others" in the characterising portion of claim 1 as indicating that the portions of software implementing the various method steps are arranged to transmit configuration-related information to each other (for example, by means of suitable communication interfaces).
3. The appellant did not contest this interpretation during the appeal proceedings.
Novelty
4. Document D1 discloses an industrial control system adapted to automatically create and reconfigure a production line according to product orders (paragraphs [0008] to [0010], [0045]). Customers can specify the desired product characteristics by interacting with a product order system (paragraphs [0017], [0018], [0024], [0049]). The system then generates a logical representation of the ordered products (paragraphs [0019], [0025]), which is used by a plurality of agents to configure the assembly line. This includes selecting and configuring the workstations needed to produce the product and, within each workstation, the resources and equipment to be used (paragraphs [0027], [0028], [0030] to [0033], [0036], [0037], Figure 1, claims 10 and 11). Knowledge is shared between information system and agents (paragraphs [0023] to [0025], [0037] and [0041]).
5. The Board therefore agrees with the contested decision that D1 discloses the following features:
a method for integrated modeling of products and factories for smart configuration of a production environment by use of a computer program, (paragraphs [0008], [0021], [0102], [0104]), the method comprising:
configuration of products by end-user (paragraphs [0017] to [0019], [0024], [0025], [0049])
configuration of a product line in a factory (paragraphs [0017], [0027], [0028], [0032], [0033], [0036], [0037], Figure 1)
configuration of a production process in a product line (paragraphs [0028], [0030], [0037], [0045], Claims 10 and 11)
the steps of configuration of products, configuration of a product line and the configuration of a production process being linked in a manner that the knowledge from one configuration process is passed to the others (paragraphs [0023] to [0025], [0037], [0041]).
6. The appellant essentially argued that the control process of D1 could not include the configuration of the product by an end-user because it started with the reception of an order from an external source, which logically followed the configuration step. The appellant also argued that D1 did not disclose carrying out the product configuration by use of a computer program, nor using the associated configuration parameters in the manufacturing process.
7. The Board does not agree with the appellant's arguments, for the following reasons:
7.1 According to D1, product orders are received at the order system "from outside of the industrial control system 100 (again, for example, from human beings or machines)" (paragraph [0024], see also Figure 1, 102). The order system is "a conventional computer system (e.g., a personal computer) or a similar device, such as a human-machine interface (HMI), a graphical user interface (GUI) or other user interface that is capable of interacting with a plurality of users ( or, alternatively, other HMI's) for receiving customer orders" (paragraph [0018]). Based on the customer's order, the order system generates a logical representation of the product defining its attributes, such as size, colour and quantity (paragraphs [0008], [0018] and [0019]).
7.2 In the Board's view, the interaction of the user with the order system to define the product attributes corresponds to the claimed "configuration of products by end-user". It is immaterial whether the product configuration takes place internally or externally to the industrial control process system, as the claimed method provides no limitations in this respect.
7.3 Since in D1 the order system is implemented on a computer and/or a graphical user interface, the configuration step necessarily implies the use of a computer program.
7.4 The configuration of the manufacturing process according to user specifications and based on the parameters generated in the configuration step is derivable, for example, from paragraphs [0008] and [0009] of D1 (after receiving an order, the system generates a production plan instance so as to operate the industrial process to satisfy at least one portion of the order).
8. Accordingly, the Board judges that D1 discloses all the features of claim 1, and therefore the appellant's sole request cannot be allowed for lack of novelty (Article 54 EPC).
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is dismissed.