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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/21/2023, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 102(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fukunaga et al (JP 2014015801) and Yamamichi (JP 2001150380).
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 1 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. This claim mentions arranging the grippers at a minimum and/or initial position. It is unclear how the grippers can be arranged in both positions at the same time. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-5 and 9-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al in view of Yamamichi (JP 2001150380).
Regarding claim 1, Fukunaga et al teaches a positioning device for positioning a limp flat workpiece, comprising (Abstract):
a provisioning area (40) for providing the limp flat workpiece (A) to be positioned (Paragraph 0030, lines 1-5; Fig. 5, element 40);
a camera (10) which is arranged and configured to generate a camera image of the limp flat workpiece (A) which is positioned and which is located in the provisioning area (40) (Paragraph 0030, lines 1-5; Fig. 5, element 10);
a first manipulator (1) which carries a first gripper configured to grip at least a portion of the limp flat workpiece (A) from the provisioning area (40) (Paragraph 0030, lines 1-5; Fig. 5, element 1);
a second gripper (2) (Paragraph 0026, lines 1-3; Fig. 3a, element 2);
and a third gripper (3) (Paragraph 0026, lines 1-3; Fig. 3a, element 3),
wherein a free space is provided between the two gripper jaw pairs, wherein the free space is dimensioned such that it can receive at least a portion of the second gripper (2) and at least a portion of the third gripper (3) when the second gripper (2) and the third gripper (3) are arranged at a minimum distance and/or in their initial positions (annotated figure),
wherein the second gripper (2) and the third gripper (3) are each configured to take over at least a portion of the limp flat workpiece (A) from the first gripper (1) (Paragraph 0026, lines 5-6; Fig. 3a, elements 2, 3, A),
and wherein: the second gripper (2) and the third gripper (3) are drivingly coupled to a linear drive unit, wherein the second gripper (2) and the third gripper (3) are each movable along the linear drive unit, or the second gripper (2) is carried by a second manipulator and the third gripper (3) is carried by a third manipulator (Paragraph 0022, lines 1-6). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
Fukunaga does not teach a first gripper with two gripper jaw pairs. Yamamichi et al teaches a first gripper (4) that comprises two jaw pairs (20, 20b) (Paragraph 0010, lines 1-4, 6-9; Paragraph 0016, lines 1-6; Fig. 1, elements 4, 20; Fig. 2, elements 20, 20b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Yamamichi in Fukunaga et al to facilitate the creation of a gripper with a pair of gripper jaws that can lift a variety of articles as taught by Yamamichi (Paragraph 0022, lines 1-5).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Fukunaga et al in further teaches a method of positioning the limp flat workpiece (A) using a positioning device, the method comprising the steps of:
a) providing the flat workpiece (A) in a provisioning area (40), the flat workpiece (A) assuming a random state (Paragraph 0030, lines 1-5; Fig. 5, elements 40, A);
b) gripping an edge of the flat workpiece (A) using the first gripper (1) (Paragraph 0031, lines 5-6; Fig. 5, elements 1, A);
c) transferring the flat workpiece (A) from the first gripper (1) to the second gripper (2) and the third gripper (3) wherein the second gripper (2) and the third gripper (3) grip the edge of the flat workpiece (A) (Paragraph 0031, lines 8-10; Fig. 3a, elements 1, 2, 3, A);
and d) depositing the flat workpiece (A) in a flat condition using the second gripper (2) and the third gripper (3) (Paragraph 0031, lines 10-12; Fig. 8b, element 100).
Regarding claim 13, Fukunaga et al further teaches for transferring the flat workpiece (A) from the first gripper (1) to the second gripper (2) and the third gripper (3), the second gripper (2) and the third gripper (3) substantially simultaneously grip a portion of the edge located in a free space between two gripper jaw pairs of the first gripper (1) (Paragraph 0031, lines 8-10; Fig. 3a, elements 1, 2, 3, A; Fig. 3b, elements 2, 3, A; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al in view of Yamamichi and in further view of Kwak (US 20190390396).
Regarding claim 2, Fukunaga et al in view of Yamamichi fails to teach rotatable grippers. Kwak teaches a positioning apparatus where the linear drive unit together with the second gripper (340G) and the third gripper (350G) is mounted in the positioning device so as to be rotatable about an axis extending parallel to its longitudinal extent (Paragraph 0111, lines 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Kwak in combination with Fukunaga et al and Yamamichi to facilitate the creation of grippers that can rotate for precise positioning as taught by Kwak et al (Paragraph 0109, lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 4, Fukunaga et al in view of Yamamichi fails to teach a provisioning container. Kwak teaches a positioning apparatus where the provisioning area comprises a provisioning container in which one or more limp flat workpieces (A) can be provided (Annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Kwak in combination with Fukunaga et al and Yamamichi to facilitate the creation of a provisioning container that provides a single area for workpieces as taught by Kwak et al (Paragraph 0129, lines 1-6).
PNG
media_image2.png
632
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Fukunaga et al in view of Yamamichi fails to teach a learning module. Kwak teaches a positioning device with a machine learning module (Paragraph 0074, lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Kwak in Fukunaga et al to facilitate the creation of a machine learning module that can analyze data to predict and perform a desirable action as taught by Kwak (Paragraph 0066, lines 1-6).
Kwak does not teach multiple machine learning modules. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate, the machine learning module, since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to duplicate certain parts on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 10, Fukunaga et al in view of Yamamichi teaches the disclosed invention except for a learning module. Kwak teaches a positioning apparatus with a camera image which shows the flat workpiece located in the provisioning area is generated by a camera (370) (Paragraph 0113, lines 1-5);
The camera image is transmitted to a first machine learning module of the control unit (380) (Paragraph 0114, lines 1-5); and
The first machine learning module identifies a position of the edge of the flat workpiece based on the camera image (Paragraph 0106, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Kwak in combination with Fukunaga et al and Yamamichi to facilitate the creation of a learning module that can enhance performance of a task as taught by Kwak et al (Paragraph 0040, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 12, Fukunaga et al in view of Yamamichi teaches the disclosed invention except for a learning module. Kwak teaches a positioning apparatus where the camera image or at least a partial image of the camera image is transmitted to a second machine learning module of the control unit (380) (Paragraph 0114, lines 1-5), and
The second machine learning module identifies a gripping point for the first gripper (330) on a basis of the camera image or the partial image of the camera image (Paragraph 0117, lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Kwak in combination with Fukunaga et al and Yamamichi to facilitate the creation of a learning module that can enhance performance of a task as taught by Kwak et al (Paragraph 0040, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 14, Fukunaga et al further teaches after transferring the flat workpiece (A) to the second gripper (2) and the third gripper (3), the second gripper (2) and the third gripper (3) are simultaneously moved away from each other until the third gripper (3) has reached a first corner of the flat workpiece (A) and the second gripper (2) has reached a second corner of the flat workpiece (A) (Paragraph 0027, lines 4-6).
Fukunaga does not teach the two arms moving separately. Kwak teaches a positioning apparatus where after transferring the flat workpiece (A) to the second gripper (330G) and the third gripper (340G), the flat workpiece (A) is held using the second gripper (330G) and the third gripper (340G) is moved away from the second gripper (330G) until the third gripper (340G) has reached a first corner of the flat workpiece (A) (Paragraph 0117, lines 1-6; Paragraph 0129, lines 1-6; Paragraph 0130, lines 1-6), or
After transferring the flat workpiece (A) to the second gripper (330G) and the third gripper (340G), the flat workpiece (A) is held using the third gripper (340G) and the second gripper (330G) is moved away from the third gripper (340G) until the second gripper (330G) has reached a second corner of the flat workpiece (A) (Paragraph 0131, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Kwak in combination with Fukunaga et al and Yamamichi to facilitate the creation of independently moving arms that can lift opposite sides of the workpiece to spread it as taught by Kwak et al (Paragraph 0132, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 15, Fukunaga et al further teaches for moving the second gripper (2) away from the third gripper (3) and/or for moving the third gripper (3) away from the second gripper (2), a gripping force of the second gripper (2) and/or of the third gripper (3) is reduced compared with a predefined initial gripping state, or
For moving the second gripper (2) away from the third gripper (3) and/or for moving the third gripper (3) away from the second gripper (2), the second gripper (2) and/or the third gripper (3) is/are opened by a specified amount (Paragraph 0027, lines 4-6; Paragraph 0032, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 19, Fukunaga et al further teaches for transferring the flat workpiece (A) from the first gripper (1) to the second gripper (2) and the third gripper (3), the second gripper (2) and the third gripper (3) substantially simultaneously grip a portion of the edge located in a free space between two gripper jaw pairs of the first gripper (1) (Paragraph 0031, lines 8-10; Fig. 3a, elements 1, 2, 3, A; Annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
333
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Fukunaga et al in view of Yamamichi teaches after transferring the flat workpiece (A) to the second gripper (2) and the third gripper (3), the second gripper (2) and the third gripper (3) are simultaneously moved away from each other until the third gripper (3) has reached a first corner of the flat workpiece (A) and the second gripper (2) has reached a second corner of the flat workpiece (A) (Paragraph 0027, lines 4-6).
Fukunaga et al does not teach the two arms moving separately. Kwak teaches a positioning apparatus where after transferring the flat workpiece (A) to the second gripper (330G) and the third gripper (340G), the flat workpiece (A) is held using the second gripper (330G) and the third gripper (340G) is moved away from the second gripper (330G) until the third gripper (340G) has reached a first corner of the flat workpiece (A) (Paragraph 0117, lines 1-6; Paragraph 0129, lines 1-6; Paragraph 0130, lines 1-6), or
after transferring the flat workpiece (A) to the second gripper (330G) and the third gripper (340G), the flat workpiece (A) is held using the third gripper (340G) and the second gripper (330G) is moved away from the third gripper (340G) until the second gripper (330G) has reached a second corner of the flat workpiece (A) (Paragraph 0131, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Kwak in combination with Fukunaga et al and Yamamichi to facilitate the creation of independently moving arms that can lift opposite sides of the workpiece to spread it as taught by Kwak et al (Paragraph 0132, lines 1-6).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al in view of Yamamichi and in further view of Toräng (SE 541843).
Regarding claim 3, Fukunaga et al in view of Yamamichi fails to teach a provisioning area with a manipulation surface. Toräng teaches a positioning apparatus with a provisioning area (3053) that comprises a manipulation surface (3052) for providing the limp flat workpiece (100) (Page 10, paragraphs 3-5, 8-10; Fig. 8a, elements 100, 3052, 3053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Toräng in combination with Fukunaga et al and Yamamichi to facilitate the creation of a manipulation surface for further handling and processing of the workpiece as taught by Toräng (Page 10, paragraphs 10-11).
Regarding claim 5, Fukunaga et al in view of Yamamichi fails to teach transferring a workpiece to a manipulation surface. Toräng teaches a positioning apparatus with a provisioning manipulator (3032) that has a provisioning gripper, wherein the provisioning manipulator (3032) is configured to transfer flat workpieces (100) provided by the provisioning container onto the manipulation surface (3052) (Page 15, lines 1-6; Fig. 8a, elements 100, 3052, 3053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Toräng in combination with Fukunaga et al and Yamamichi to facilitate the creation of a manipulator that can transfer the workpiece to a location for further processing as taught by Toräng (Page 10, paragraphs 8- 9).
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al in view of Yamamichi in view of Kwak and in further view of Takabayashi et al (JP 2019119027).
Regarding claim 11, Fukunaga et al in view of Yamamichi in view of Kwak fails to teach a camera that uses partial imaging. Takabayashi et al teaches a positioning device wherein for identifying the position of the edge, the camera image is subdivided into a plurality of partial images by the control unit, and characteristic image features are extracted by the first machine learning module of the control unit (204) for each partial image and, based on the characteristic image features, for each partial image a probability is established with which it shows the edge of the flat workpiece, wherein, for each partial image, probabilities are established with which it belongs to one of a plurality of predefined categories (Page 3, paragraph 11; Page 6, paragraphs 3, 5; Page 17, paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Takabayashi et al in combination with Fukunaga et al, Yamamichi and Kwak to facilitate the creation of partial images that can be recognized at high speed as taught by Takabayashi et al (Page 17, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 18, Kwak further teaches the camera image or at least a partial image of the camera (370) is transmitted to a second machine learning module of the control unit (380) (Paragraph 0114, lines 1-5), and
The second machine learning module identifies a gripping point for the first gripper (330) on a basis of the camera image or the partial image of the camera image (Paragraph 0117, lines 1-6).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al in view of Yamamichi in view of Kwak and in further view of Toräng (SE 541843).
Regarding claim 16, Fukunaga et al in view of Yamamichi in view of Kwak fails to teach a provisioning area with a manipulation surface. Toräng teaches a positioning apparatus with a provisioning area that comprises a manipulation surface (3053) for providing the limp flat workpiece (100) (Page 14, lines 20-25; Fig. 8a, elements 100, 3053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Toräng in combination with Fukunaga et al, Yamamichi and Kwak to facilitate the creation of a manipulation surface for further handling and processing of the workpiece as taught by Toräng (Page 10, paragraphs 10-11).
Regarding claim 17, Fukunaga et al in view of Yamamichi in view of Kwak fails to teach transferring a workpiece to a manipulation surface. Toräng teaches a positioning apparatus with a provisioning manipulator (3032) that has a provisioning gripper, wherein the provisioning manipulator (3032) is configured to transfer flat workpieces (100) provided by the provisioning container onto the manipulation surface (3052) (Page 15, lines 1-6; Fig. 8a, elements 100, 3052, 3053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Toräng in combination with Fukunaga et al, Yamamichi and Kwak to facilitate the creation of a manipulator that can transfer the workpiece to a location for further processing as taught by Toräng (Page 10, paragraphs 8-9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:00am to 4:30pm.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights