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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
In accordance with the Remarks filed 10/27/2025, claims 1-6 and 12-22 are elected for examining on the merits without traverse; and claims 7-11 and 23-28 are non-elected for examining. Hence, claims 1-28 are pending, out of which claims 1-6 and 12-22 are examined.
This application is a Continuation of 16711192 (filed 12/11/2019, now U.S. Patent # 11518043), which claims foreign priority to applications of JAPAN: 2018-238830 (filed 12/20/2018) and 2019-196805 (filed 10/29/2019).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The structure of the claimed apparatus is critical or essential to the practice of the invention, but not included in the claim(s) is not enabled by the disclosure. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 19 is rejected under 112(a) as being a single component claim, where a single component (i.e., the transmission apparatus, or as itself) recitation does not appear in combination with another component, is subject to an undue breadth rejection. The single component which covered every conceivable ways for achieving the stated purpose was held nonenabling for the scope of claim because the specification disclosed at most only those known to the inventor. See MPEP §2173.04. It is suggested that a second component (e.g. a memory) to be added provided no new matter introduced.
Claim 21 is rejected under 112(a) as being a single component claim, where a single component (i.e., the reception apparatus, or as itself) recitation does not appear in combination with another component, is subject to an undue breadth rejection. The single component which covered every conceivable ways for achieving the stated purpose was held nonenabling for the scope of claim because the specification disclosed at most only those known to the inventor. See MPEP §2173.04. It is suggested that a second component (e.g. a memory) to be added provided no new matter introduced.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 14, 16, and 17 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 line 2-3, “the predetermined operation data set” has no antecedent basis.
Claim 4 is rejected based on its dependency from the rejected claim 3.
Claim 14 line 3, the phrase “an apparatus” is unclear and ambiguous as to whether it is referred to the same “apparatus” as in claim 1 line 2. Clarification is requested.
Claim 16, this claim is unclear and ambiguous. For example, while the preamble is claiming a method as independent claim format, however, the claim body is recited as a dependent claim of claim 14. In addition, claim 14 does not comprise any steps for a method. Hence, this claim is unclear and ambiguous. If applicant’s intention is indeed for claiming a method as independent claim, the examiner suggests applicant to amend the claim by writing out with subject matters that are in method format. Similar problem appears in claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 20 and 22 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
Claim 20 is directed to the abstract idea of transmitting data wirelessly. The processes of a transmission apparatus configured to transmit operation data to an apparatus wirelessly all describe the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations of transmits...at least two pieces of predetermined operation data each of which indicates an operation of the apparatus in a predetermined period, as the operation data are well-understood and conventional activities previously known to the industry. None of the limitations, considered as an ordered combination, provide eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claim simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity.
Claim 22, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 20 above, except this claim is a control method for a reception apparatus for receiving (instead of transmitting as in claim 20).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6 and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAPOOR et al. (US 20170075331 A1, hereinafter KAPOOR), in view of Wicks et al. (US 20150352721 A1, hereinafter Wicks).
Regarding claim 1,
KAPOOR teaches a communication apparatus comprising (in general, see fig. 8 along with fig. 3-4, and their respectively paragraphs):
a transmission apparatus configured to transmit operation data for an apparatus using wireless communication (see at least para. 59 along with para. 34, “...Step S110 is performed by the pick scheduler 104 to generate one or more queues as illustrated in FIG. 3. When multiple robots 14 are present, step S110 is performed by creating respective queues for each of the plurality of robots 14. Step S110 can be performed by a user interacting with PLC 10 to configure the pick scheduler 104...”; note that “...the communication between the PLC 10 and the robots 14 and between the PLC 10 and an intermediate motion controller can be wireless...”);
and a reception apparatus configured to receive the operation data using wireless communication (see at least para. 59-60 in view of para. 41 of fig. 3, “...In step S112, a robot 14 is controlled to begin tracking a first workpiece 16, 18 in the queue of a robot 14...”, note that “...The robots 14 are controlled to manipulate each workpiece in the order specified by the respective queues. The queue for each robot is thus an example of a schedule that includes information representing an order in which the workpieces are to be manipulated...”),
wherein the transmission apparatus transmits, to the reception apparatus, predetermined operation data including at least two pieces of predetermined operation data each of which indicates an operation of the apparatus, as the operation data (see at least para. 41-42, for a non-limiting example, “...FIG. 4 illustrates data for seven workpieces, workpieces A-G, which are examples of individual workpieces corresponding to workpieces 16 and 18. As illustrated in FIG. 4, workpiece information can represent the position of each workpiece in an X-direction and a Y-direction in a common coordinate system. Similarly, the workpiece information can represent a Z-direction position...”).
KAPOOR does not specifically teach [an operation of the apparatus] in a predetermined period.
Wicks teaches [an operation of the apparatus] in a predetermined period (see at least para. 94, “...In some embodiments, the results data may further include instructions, codes, and/or commands for controlling the robotic arm, such as instructions that may cause motors of the robotic arm to move the arm in various directions for various periods in order to be aligned with verified target items...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wicks into the apparatus of KAPOOR for quickly and cost efficiently items retrieving scheme (para. 2).
Regarding claim 2, KAPOOR in view of Wicks teaches claim 1.
KAPOOR further teaches the transmission apparatus transmits, to the reception apparatus, the predetermined operation data, and information that specifies predetermined operation data to be executed from among the predetermined operation data (see at least para. 41-42 and fig. 4, for a non-limiting example, “...FIG. 4 illustrates data for seven workpieces, workpieces A-G, which are examples of individual workpieces corresponding to workpieces 16 and 18. As illustrated in FIG. 4, workpiece information can represent the position of each workpiece in an X-direction and a Y-direction in a common coordinate system. Similarly, the workpiece information can represent a Z-direction position...”)
Regarding claim 3, KAPOOR in view of Wicks teaches claim 2.
KAPOOR further teaches the transmission apparatus transmits, to the reception apparatus, a predetermined number of pieces of the predetermined operation data set in chronological order starting with the predetermined operation data specified by the information (see at least para. 41-42 of fig. 3-4, for a non-limiting example, “...This assignment can be performed by creating a queue for each robot 14. A queue represents an order, or sequence, in which the individual robot 14 will manipulate the individual workpieces...”)
Regarding claim 4, KAPOOR in view of Wicks teaches claim 3.
KAPOOR further teaches the transmission apparatus combines the predetermined number of pieces of the predetermined operation data, modulates the combined predetermined operation data, and transmits the modulated combined predetermined operation data to the reception apparatus (see at least fig. 5A/B/C in view of fig. 3, take fig. 5A as a non-limiting example, “...The workpieces in FIG. 5A are arranged in order, such that workpiece A is first in sequence, and workpiece G is last according to the X position along workpiece supplier 22. Sequential queuing is performed by assigning each workpiece to robot # 1 and robot # 2 in an alternating sequence such that each robot is assigned to every other workpiece...”, note that “...This assignment can be performed by creating a queue for each robot 14. A queue represents an order, or sequence, in which the individual robot 14 will manipulate the individual workpieces...”)
Regarding claim 5, KAPOOR in view of Wicks teaches claim 2.
KAPOOR further teaches in a case where the wireless communication is maintained, the reception apparatus executes the predetermined operation data specified by the information (see at least fig. 5A/B/C along with para. 31, take fig. 5A as a non-limiting example, “...The workpieces in FIG. 5A are arranged in order, such that workpiece A is first in sequence, and workpiece G is last according to the X position along workpiece supplier 22. Sequential queuing is performed by assigning each workpiece to robot # 1 and robot # 2 in an alternating sequence such that each robot is assigned to every other workpiece...”, note that “...The personal computer 32 is connected to the PLC 10 via an Ethernet connection or wireless network, for example. This allows a user to control the operation of a robot 14 by interacting with the PLC 10 itself, ...”)
Regarding claim 6, KAPOOR in view of Wicks teaches claim 2.
KAPOOR further teaches in a case where the wireless communication is maintained, the reception apparatus does not execute the predetermined operation data other than the predetermined operation data specified by the information (see at least fig. 5A/B/C along with para. 31, take fig. 5A as a non-limiting example, “...The workpieces in FIG. 5A are arranged in order, such that workpiece A is first in sequence, and workpiece G is last according to the X position along workpiece supplier 22. Sequential queuing is performed by assigning each workpiece to robot # 1 and robot # 2 in an alternating sequence such that each robot is assigned to every other workpiece...”, note that “...The personal computer 32 is connected to the PLC 10 via an Ethernet connection or wireless network, for example. This allows a user to control the operation of a robot 14 by interacting with the PLC 10 itself, ...”)
Regarding claim 12, KAPOOR in view of Wicks teaches claim 1.
KAPOOR does not specifically teach the predetermined period is one second or a period corresponding to one process in an operation executed by the apparatus.
Wicks teaches the predetermined period is one second or a period corresponding to one process in an operation executed by the apparatus (see at least para. 94, “...In some embodiments, the results data may further include instructions, codes, and/or commands for controlling the robotic arm, such as instructions that may cause motors of the robotic arm to move the arm in various directions for various periods in order to be aligned with verified target items...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wicks into the apparatus of KAPOOR for quickly and cost efficiently items retrieving scheme (para. 2).
Regarding claim 13, KAPOOR in view of Wicks teaches claim 1.
KAPOOR does not specifically teach the wireless communication is executed by at least one of Wi-Fi Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.1 communication, fourth generation (4G) communication, fifth generation (5G) communication.
Wicks teaches the wireless communication is executed by at least one of Wi-Fi Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.1 communication, fourth generation (4G) communication, fifth generation (5G) communication (see at least para. 44 and fig. 1, for one non-limiting example, using WiFi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wicks into the apparatus of KAPOOR for quickly and cost efficiently items retrieving scheme (para. 2).
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in production apparatus claim format.
In addition, KAPOOR in view of Wicks also teaches an apparatus including a movement mechanism and a driving source configured to be moved by the movement mechanism (KAPOOR, see at least fig. 1 and fig. 6), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in robot apparatus claim format.
In addition, KAPOOR in view of Wicks also teaches an apparatus comprising a robot arm including an end effector (KAPOOR, see at least fig. 1 and fig. 6), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 14 except this claim is in method claim format.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 15 except this claim is in method claim format.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in method claim format.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in transmission apparatus claim format.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 19 except this claim is in a format of control method for the transmission apparatus of claim 19.
Regarding claim 21, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in reception apparatus claim format.
Regarding claim 22, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 21 except this claim is in a format of control method for the reception apparatus of claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman A. Abaza can be reached on (571) 270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465