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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/11/2026 and 06/03/2026 were filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 01/14/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 04/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-13 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “it would NOT have been obvious to control the robot as taught by Oda based on the movement amount and the movement direction for rearranging the component by the natural fall as taught by Muto” (emphasis original) (Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 7), and therefore the prior art fails to teach all the limitations of independent claim 1 and similar language in independent claims 9 and 10. Given claims 3-8 and 11-13 depend on independent claim 1, Applicant similarly argues that the prior art of record does not teach claims 3-8 and 11-13.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Muto discloses “The calculation unit 5 calculates in which direction and to what extent the candidate part 42 should be moved in order to eliminated the overlap between the candidate part 42 and another part,” such that the unpickable candidate part 42 becomes the pickable isolated part 41 [0035]. A person of ordinary skill in the art of controlling robotic arms would know how to control the robot arm 22 and robot hand 24 of Oda to move in a certain direction for a certain distance. Furthermore, Oda teaches “hand 24 approaches and comes into contact with article 18 to be taken out from a side to which the article is inclined (the left side), and hand 24 pushes article 18 to be taken out toward the side opposed to the approach side so as to correct the posture of the article” to a pickable state [col. 5, lines 11-20] where the correction of the posture of the article is a calculated operation amount adjusting the reference operation program to the actual positions and postures of the hand 24 and article 18 [col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 20] when the posture of article 18 is unpickable but able to be moved to a pickable posture (rearrangement position without interference from container 20). In combination, Muto/Oda teaches adjusting a reference pickup operation program (Oda, col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 20) to control a robot arm and hand to correct a state of an article/component (Oda, col. 5, lines 11-20) by moving the article/component in a certain direction (Oda, col. 5, lines 11-20; Muto, [0035]) for a certain distance (Muto, [0035]) when the posture of the article/component is unpickable but there is no interference between the obstacle and the article/component and the article/component is able to be moved to a pickable posture (Oda, col. 5, lines 11-20 and Figs. 4 and 5). Therefore, Muto/Oda teaches the limitation “controls the arm and the hand to move the component that is unpickable to the rearrangement position on a basis of the calculated operation amount in a case where there is no interference between the obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position” of claim 1.
The combination of Muto/Oda teaches all of the limitations of amended claim 1, so the rejection of claim 1 under 103 is maintained. Since the arguments against the rejections of claims 3-13 are significantly similar to those of amended claim 1, claims 3-13 are rejected on the same grounds as the rejection of amended claim 1.
Applicant further argues “Muto fails to disclose, teach or suggest regarding determining whether or not rearrangement of the component is possible in a case where there is interference” regarding new claims 11-13 (Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, this argument does not appear to be relevant to claim 13. Neither claim 13 nor claim 1, which claim 13 is dependent upon, recite “determining whether or not rearrangement of the component is possible in a case where there is interference”. Claim 13 recites new claim language that necessitates new grounds of rejection. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto in view of Oda, and further in view of Matsumoto (US 11122721 B2) as written below.
Next, regarding claim 11, Muto does disclose the limitation “wherein the hardware processor determines whether or not rearrangement of the component is possible in a case where there is interference between the obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position”. In one interpretation, the hardware processor determines whether or not rearrangement is possible when determining which components 40 are candidate parts 42 (for which rearrangement calculations are performed), where each candidate part 42 has interference with only one other part [0020], and which components 40 are excluded from movement (rearrangement) calculations because they have interference with multiple parts [0034-0035]. In another interpretation, the hardware processor determines whether or not rearrangement is possible when determining which of the candidate parts 42 to set as a movement target (component that will be rearranged in the current control cycle) [0051]. Again, each candidate part 42 has interference with another part [0020]. Only selecting a candidate part 42 as a movement target (component to be rearranged) when the candidate part 42 has a separation distance from the peripheral wall portion 14 greater than the calculated movement distance in the movement direction [0056] is determining that rearrangement of the component is possible. When a candidate part 42 is not selected as a movement target because the separation distance is less than the movement distance, this is a determination that rearrangement of the component is not currently possible. Therefore, the combination of Muto/Oda as a whole teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Thus, claim 11 is rejected under 103 over Muto in view of Oda. Since the arguments against the rejections of claim 12 is significantly similar to those of claim 11, claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as the rejection of claim 11.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 recites the limitation “an obstacle”. It is not clear if this obstacle is the same obstacle previously recited in claim 1 or a different obstacle. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Citations of documents not in the English language are made to paragraph numbers of the English translation.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto and Sasaki (JP 2018008343 A; hereafter “Muto”) in view of Oda (US 8630737 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Muto discloses
a picker base on which a component is to be loaded (See movable tray 11 in Fig. 1.);
an arm and a hand that picks up the component loaded on the picker base… (See hand 16 (arm) and claws 17 (hand) in Fig. 1. See “a plurality of components 40 (workpieces) placed on a movable tray 11 are photographed by a camera 15, and one of the components 40 is picked up by a robot hand 16 using the photographed image” [0011]. See also [0018-0019].);
a detector that detects the component loaded on the picker base (See camera 15 in Fig. 1. See also [0011-0012] and [0017].); and
a hardware processor that determines a state of the component loaded on the picker base, on a basis of information detected by the detector (“The information of the image photographed by the camera 15 is transmitted to the control device 20” and “the overlapping state… of each component 40 [is] grasped by known image processing” [0012]. The control device 20 contains a processor 21 [0025]. See also [0020], [0024], and [0032-0033].),
wherein the hardware processor determines whether the component is a component that is pickable or a component that is unpickable by the supplier on a basis of the state of the component (“The above determination of the isolated [pickable] component 41 and the candidate [unpickable] component 42 is determined in accordance with the overlapping state between the first region 31 of the other component and the proximity region 33 of the own component” [0024]. “When an isolated component 41 is present in an image, the pickup unit 3 causes the robot hand 16 to pick up the isolated component 41” [0033]. See also [0020] and [0032].),
calculates an operation amount for rearranging the component that is unpickable to a rearrangement position (“The calculation unit 5 calculates in which direction and to what extent the candidate part 42 should be moved in order to eliminated the overlap between the candidate part 42 and another part,” such that the unpickable candidate part 42 becomes the pickable isolated part 41 [0035]. See also [0020] and [0024].),
determines whether or not there is interference between an obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (At the component’s original position, interference with “the candidate [unpickable] component 42 is determined in accordance with the overlapping state between the first region 31 of the other component and the proximity region 33 of the own component,” where the other component is a possible obstacle [0024]. At the component’s expected rearrangement position, interference with the peripheral wall portion 14 is determined by comparing the separation distance between the candidate component 42 and peripheral wall portion 14 in the movement direction and the movement distance [0043]. See “At this time, it is preferable to operate the actuator 13 after confirming that the movement distance of the candidate part 42 is equal to or less than the separation distance from the peripheral wall portion 14”—that there will be no interference between the candidate component’s expected rearrangement position and an obstacle [0043].).
However, Muto does not explicitly teach “an arm and a hand that… supply the component to a predetermined position” and “controls the arm and the hand to move the component that is unpickable to the rearrangement position.”
Oda, in the same field of endeavor (component supply devices), teaches
an arm and a hand that pick up the component loaded on the picker base and supply the component to a predetermined position (See taking out device 10 having a robot arm 22 and robot hand 24 in Fig. 1. Picker base: see container 20 in Fig. 1. See “Then, arm 22 is upwardly moved while keeping this state [gripping an article 18], and article 18 is conveyed to a predetermined place” [col. 4, lines 20-39]. See also col. 3, lines 18-34 and col. 6, lines 16-27.);
calculates an operation amount for rearranging the component that is unpickable to a rearrangement position (See “When an interference occurs, positional information and postural information at each teach point of a series of teach points in the reference operation program are corrected based on information from vision sensor 16 or 30” [col. 4, lines 40-54] so that the posture of article 18 is corrected to a posture for which hand 24 can take the article 18 out of the container 20 [col. 5, lines 11-33]. The adjustment of the position/posture of the hand 24 to correct the posture of the article 18 is a calculated operation amount adjusting the reference operation program to the actual positions and postures of the hand 24 and article 18 [col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 20]. See also col. 1, line 58 to col. 2, line 30; col. 4, lines 6-19; col. 5, lines 42-51; and Fig. 5.),
determines whether or not there is interference between an obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (At the component’s original position, interference with container 20 is determined in step S3 of Fig. 2 [col. 4, lines 6-19]. See also col. 4, lines 40-62].);
controls the arm and the hand to move the component that is unpickable to the rearrangement position on a basis of the calculated operation amount in a case where there is no interference between the obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (See “In the next step S5, an operation for correcting the posture of [unpickable] article 18 to be taken out by using hand 24 [connected to arm 22] is carried out. For example, since article 18 to be taken out is significantly inclined relative to the posture in which hand 24 can represent the reference position/posture without interfering with container 20 [obstacle] as shown in FIG. 3a, hand 24 approaches and comes into contact with article 18 to be taken out from a side to which the article is inclined (the left side), and hand 24 pushes article 18 to be taken out toward the side opposed to the approach side so as to correct the posture of the article” to a pickable state [col. 5, lines 11-20]. This is a calculated adjustment (operation amount) to the reference operation program [col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 1] when the posture of article 18 is unpickable but able to be moved to a pickable posture (rearrangement position without interference from container 20). See also col. 4, lines 20-54; col. 6, lines 16-27; and Figs. 2, 4, and 5.).
In combination, Muto/Oda teaches adjusting a reference pickup operation program (Oda, col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 20) to control a robot arm and hand to correct a state of an article/component (Oda, col. 5, lines 11-20) by moving the article/component in a certain direction (Oda, col. 5, lines 11-20; Muto, [0035]) for a certain distance (Muto, [0035]) when the posture of article 18 is unpickable but there is no interference between the obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position and article 18 is able to be moved to a pickable posture (Oda, col. 5, lines 11-20 and Figs. 4 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the picking device of Muto to rearrange unpickable components and supply a picked component to a predetermined place as taught by Oda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of completing “delivery to the next process,” such as “assembly” or “inspection” (Muto, [0002]) and converting unpickable components to pickable components by correcting the posture of a specific unpickable component (Oda; col. 6, lines 16-34).
Regarding claim 3, Muto/Oda disclose the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Muto additionally discloses
wherein the hardware processor sorts the state of the component into a plurality of types on a basis of the information detected by the detector (The overlapping state of the component can be assigned a type ‘isolated’ or a type ‘candidate’: “The above determination of the isolated component 41 and the candidate component 42 is determined in accordance with the overlapping state between the first region 31 of the other component and the proximity region 33 of the own component” [0024]. See also [0020].).
Regarding claim 4, Muto/Oda disclose the limitations of claim 3 as addressed above, and Muto additionally discloses
wherein the hardware processor calculates an operation amount for adjusting the component that is unpickable to a pickable state according to a type indicating a state of the sorted component (“The calculation unit 5 calculates in which direction and to what extent the candidate [unpickable] part 42 should be moved in order to eliminated the overlap between the candidate part 42 and another part” [0035]. “When there are a plurality of candidate parts 42, the candidate part 42 having the minimum movement distance is selected as the movement target,” indicating that the movement calculations are performed according to component state type ‘candidate’ [0056].).
See also col. 1, line 58 to col. 2, line 30; col. 4, lines 6-19; col. 4, lines 40-54; col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, lines 11-33; col. 5, lines 42-51; and Fig. 5 of Oda.
Regarding claim 11, Muto/Oda disclose the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Muto additionally discloses
wherein the hardware processor determines whether or not rearrangement of the component is possible in a case where there is interference between the obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (In one interpretation, the hardware processor determines whether or not rearrangement is possible when determining which components 40 are candidate parts 42 and which components 40 are excluded from movement (rearrangement) calculations. See in Table 1, components 1, 2, and 5 are candidate parts 42 (later, “The calculation unit 5 calculates in which direction and to what extent the candidate part 42 should be moved in order to eliminate the overlap between the candidate part 42 and another part” [0035]), but component 3 “is excluded from the candidate parts 42 because it overlaps with the first regions 31 of two other parts” (no movement calculations are performed because rearrangement is not possible) [0034]. The determination of which components 40 are candidate parts 42 or excluded is performed by extraction unit 4 [0034], which is part of the component pick up program 1 [0029] run by processor 21 of control device 20 [0025-0027]. In another interpretation, the hardware processor determines whether or not rearrangement is possible when determining which of the candidate parts 42 to set as a movement target (component that will be rearranged in the current control cycle). See “when the isolated part 41 does not exist [all components have interference with an obstacle]… the moving distances and moving directions for eliminating the overlapping state of the individual candidate parts 42 are calculated (step A8). In addition, the separation distances between the individual candidate components 42 and the peripheral wall portion 14 are calculated (step A9), and the candidate component 42 that is sufficiently separated from the peripheral wall portion 14 in comparison with the movement distances of the candidate components 42 and has the smallest movement distances is selected as the movement target (step A10)” [0051]. Only selecting a candidate part 42 as a movement target (component to be rearranged) when the candidate part 42 has a separation distance from the peripheral wall portion 14 greater than the calculated movement distance in the movement direction is determining that rearrangement of the component is possible [0056]. When a candidate part 42 is not selected as a movement target because the separation distance is less than the movement distance, this is a determination that rearrangement of the component is not possible, at least in this particular control cycle. This determination is performed by the control unit 6 [0043], which is part of the component pick up program 1 [0029] run by processor 21 of control device 20 [0025-0027]. See also [0020], [0024], [0032-0033], [0037] and [0052].).
Regarding claim 12, Muto/Oda disclose the limitations of claim 11 as addressed above, and Muto additionally discloses
wherein, in a case where the rearrangement of the component is possible, the hardware processor sets a post-rearrangement hand approach region and a post-rearrangement component region from a rearrangement position of the component, a hand fingertip width, a finger opening width and an angle of the component (After rearranging a component so that “the candidate part 42 becomes the isolated part 41,” the rearranged isolated part 41 “is picked up in the next control cycle” [0052]. The control cycle is described in Fig. 10 and [0049-0052]. In step A4, “the first region 31, the second region 32, and the proximity region 33 are set for each component 40” imaged by camera 15 [0050]. This setting process is detailed in [0030-0032], with the regions set with respect to the (rearrangement) position and orientation/angle of the rearranged component as extracted from the image of all the components 40 (see Fig. 5). Post-rearrangement component region: “The first region 31… is a quadrangle having substantially the same shape as the outer shape of the component 40” [0030]. Post-rearrangement hand approach region: see both second regions 32 for each component 40 in Fig. 5; “The second region 32 is a region corresponding to a gripping margin of the robot hand 16 in each component 40” [0024]. As shown in Fig. 5, two second regions 32 are set on opposite sides of the first region 31; in this case, the finger opening width for picking up a component 40 is the width of first region 31, which is the width of the component 40. “Each of the vertical size W1 and the horizontal size W2 of the second region 32 is set according to the size of the claw 17 of the robot hand 16” [0031]. W2 is set such that W2 ≥ W4, where W4 is the horizontal side of the claw 17 (hand fingertip width) [0031]. The setting of the regions is performed by the setting unit 2 [0030], which is part of the component pick up program 1 [0029] run by processor 21 of control device 20 [0025-0027]. See also Fig. 4 and [0028].), and
determines whether or not there is the obstacle in the post-rearrangement hand approach region or the post-rearrangement component region (In step A5, “it is determined whether or not there is an isolated component 41 (pickup target) in which the proximity region 33 [including the post-rearrangement component region, first region 31, and the post-rearrangement hand approach region, second regions 32; see above] does not overlap the first region 31 of another component” [0050]. This is a determination of whether or not there is an obstacle; see [0024] and [0031-0032]. If the first region 31 of another component overlaps with the proximity region 33 of the rearranged component, the other component is the obstacle. Similarly, the peripheral wall portion 14 of the picker base is the obstacle if it overlaps with the proximity region 33 of the rearranged component [0056]. If there is no overlap (no obstacle), the rearranged component is “recognized as an isolated component 41” [0032]. See also [0019].).
Regarding claim 10, Muto discloses
A non-transitory recording medium storing a computer readable program causing a computer to execute (See at least “A program (for example, the component pickup program 1) executed by the control device 20 may be recorded and stored in the memory 22 or may be recorded and stored in the auxiliary storage device 23” in paragraph [0027] and “the auxiliary storage device 23 is a memory device that… includes, for example, a non-volatile memory” in paragraph [0026].):
detecting a component loaded on the picker base (See “a plurality of components 40 (workpieces) placed on a movable tray 11 are photographed by a camera 15” [0011].) and
determining a state of the component (“The information of the image photographed by the camera 15 is transmitted to the control device 20” and “the overlapping state.. of each component 40 [is] grasped by known image processing” [0012]. See also [0020], [0024], and [0032-0033].);
determining whether the component is a component that is pickable or a component that is unpickable by an arm and a hand on a basis of the state of the component (See “The above determination of the isolated [pickable] component 41 and the candidate [unpickable] component 42 is determined in accordance with the overlapping state between the first region 31 of the other component and the proximity region 33 of the own component” [0024]. “When an isolated component 41 is present in an image, the pickup unit 3 causes the robot hand 16 to pick up the isolated component 41” [0033]. See also [0020] and [0032].);
calculating an operation amount for rearranging the component that is unpickable to a rearrangement position (“The calculation unit 5 calculates in which direction and to what extent the candidate part 42 should be moved in order to eliminated the overlap between the candidate part 42 and another part,” such that the unpickable candidate part 42 becomes the pickable isolated part 41 [0035]. See also [0020] and [0024].);
determining there is no interference between an obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (At the component’s original position, interference with “the candidate [unpickable] component 42 is determined in accordance with the overlapping state between the first region 31 of the other component and the proximity region 33 of the own component,” where the other component is a possible obstacle [0024]. It is determined there is no interference with the candidate component 42 (and that the candidate component 42 is the isolated component 41) “when the component [42] does not overlap the first regions 31 of all the other components” [0024]. At the component’s expected rearrangement position, interference with the peripheral wall portion 14 is determined by comparing the separation distance between the candidate component 42 and peripheral wall portion 14 in the movement direction and the movement distance [0043]. See “At this time, it is preferable to operate the actuator 13 after confirming that the movement distance of the candidate part 42 is equal to or less than the separation distance from the peripheral wall portion 14”—that there is no interference between the candidate component’s expected rearrangement position and an obstacle [0043].);
controlling… to move the component that is unpickable to the rearrangement position on a basis of the calculated operation amount in response to the determination that there is no interference between the obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (“The control unit 6 controls the operation of the movable tray 11 to move the candidate component 42 based on the movement distance, the movement direction, and the separation distance of the candidate component 42 calculated by the calculation unit 5” using actuator(s) 13 [0043]. See “At this time, it is preferable to operate the actuator 13 after confirming that the movement distance of the candidate part 42 is equal to or less than the separation distance from the peripheral wall portion 14… the moving target may be determined on the condition that the separation distance is equal to or greater than the moving distance”—that the actuator(s) 13 moves the candidate component 42 when there is no interference between the candidate component’s expected rearrangement position and an obstacle [0043]. All isolated (pickable) components are preferentially picked before candidate (unpickable) components; see [0033] and [0034].).
However, Muto does not explicitly teach “controlling the arm and the hand to move the component that is unpickable to the rearrangement position.”
Oda, in the same field of endeavor (component supply devices), teaches
…an arm and a hand… (See taking out device 10 having a robot arm 22 and robot hand 24 in Fig. 1. Picker base: see container 20 in Fig. 1. See “Then, arm 22 is upwardly moved while keeping this state [gripping an article 18], and article 18 is conveyed to a predetermined place” [col. 4, lines 20-39]. See also col. 3, lines 18-34 and col. 6, lines 16-27.);
calculating an operation amount for rearranging the component that is unpickable to a rearrangement position (See “When an interference occurs, positional information and postural information at each teach point of a series of teach points in the reference operation program are corrected based on information from vision sensor 16 or 30” [col. 4, lines 40-54] so that the posture of article 18 is corrected to a posture for which hand 24 can take the article 18 out of the container 20 [col. 5, lines 11-33]. The adjustment of the position/posture of the hand 24 to correct the posture of the article 18 is a calculated operation amount adjusting the reference operation program to the actual positions and postures of the hand 24 and article 18 [col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 20]. See also col. 1, line 58 to col. 2, line 30; col. 4, lines 6-19; col. 5, lines 42-51; and Fig. 5.),
determining there is no interference between an obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (At the component’s original position, whether there is interference with container 20 is determined in step S3 of Fig. 2 [col. 4, lines 6-19]. See also col. 4, lines 40-62].);
controlling the arm and the hand to move the component that is unpickable to the rearrangement position on a basis of the calculated operation amount in response to the determination that there is no interference between the obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (See “In the next step S5, an operation for correcting the posture of [unpickable] article 18 to be taken out by using hand 24 [connected to arm 22] is carried out. For example, since article 18 to be taken out is significantly inclined relative to the posture in which hand 24 can represent the reference position/posture without interfering with container 20 [obstacle] as shown in FIG. 3a, hand 24 approaches and comes into contact with article 18 to be taken out from a side to which the article is inclined (the left side), and hand 24 pushes article 18 to be taken out toward the side opposed to the approach side so as to correct the posture of the article” to a pickable state [col. 5, lines 11-20]. This is a calculated adjustment (operation amount) to the reference operation program [col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 1] when the posture of article 18 is unpickable but able to be moved to a pickable posture (rearrangement position without interference from container 20). See also col. 4, lines 20-54 and col. 6, lines 16-27.).
In combination, Muto/Oda teaches adjusting a reference pickup operation program (Oda, col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 20) to control a robot arm and hand to correct a state of an article/component (Oda, col. 5, lines 11-20) by moving the article/component in a certain direction (Oda, col. 5, lines 11-20; Muto, [0035]) for a certain distance (Muto, [0035]) when the posture of article 18 is unpickable but there is no interference between the obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position and article 18 is able to be moved to a pickable posture (Oda, col. 5, lines 11-20 and Figs. 4 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the picking device of Muto to rearrange unpickable components and supply a picked component to a predetermined place as taught by Oda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of completing “delivery to the next process,” such as “assembly” or “inspection” (Muto, [0002]) and converting unpickable components to pickable components by correcting the posture of a specific unpickable component (Oda; col. 6, lines 16-34).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto in view of Oda, and further in view of Ikeyama and Kuroda (JP 2012235056 A; hereafter “Ikeyama”) and Iwaki (US 20190223335 A1). Citations are made to paragraph numbers of the English translation of Ikeyama.
Regarding claim 5, Muto/Oda disclose the limitations of claim 3 as addressed above. However, Muto/Oda does not explicitly teach “a storage that stores a minimum area threshold and a maximum area threshold for each posture of the component, wherein the hardware processor determines whether a state of the component is a component that is pickable or a component that is unpickable on a basis of the information detected by the detector and the minimum area threshold and the maximum area threshold.”
Ikeyama, in the same field of endeavor (component supply devices), teaches
a storage that stores a minimum area threshold and a maximum area threshold… of the component (“a memory (not shown) built in the control device 90 stores... dimension data necessary for obtaining projection areas of side images of a plurality of types of components” [0047]. A component is identified “based on the acquired imaging area of the object… and the calculated minimum projection area and maximum projection area of the component,” i.e., if the area of the component in the image is within predefined area thresholds [0050]. The thresholds “are set by adding a predetermined margin in consideration of the suction posture of the components” [0051].).
wherein the hardware processor determines… a component… on a basis of the information detected by the detector and the minimum area threshold and the maximum area threshold (“Then, based on the acquired imaging area of the object to be sucked and the calculated minimum projection area and maximum projection area of the component…, it is determined whether the sucked object is a component or a foreign substance other than the component” [0050]. The acquired imaging area of the object is derived from information detected by the detector (an image by camera 21); see [0044] and [0049]. The control device 90 is a computer, commonly known to have a hardware processor; the control device contains memory [0047] and controls a screen [0052] and motors [0042].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the component supply device of Muto/Oda to determine whether an imaged object is a component or foreign object based on minimum and maximum area thresholds as taught by Ikeyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications “to improve the discrimination accuracy between the component and the foreign matter [or other component] regardless of the sucking posture of the sucked object” (Ikeyama, [0012]).
However, Muto/Oda/Ikeyama does not explicitly teach “a minimum area threshold and a maximum area threshold for each posture of the component” (emphasis added) or “wherein the hardware processor determines whether a state of the component is a component that is pickable or a component that is unpickable.”
Iwaki, in the same field of endeavor (component supply devices), teaches
a storage that stores… for each posture of the component (See “Identification information is information related to the form of each leaded component 410 supplied by loose component supply device 32, and is configured from information representing the form of four side surfaces of leaded components 410,” and “‘identification information’ is stored in individual control device 452 of loose component supply device 32” in paragraph [0080]. The example identification information appears to be the top side of each of the four postures of the component (see Fig. 15).).
wherein the hardware processor determines whether a state of the component is a component that is pickable or a component that is unpickable on a basis of the information detected by the detector… (The individual control device 452 is a computer, commonly known to have a hardware processor [0067]. “The image data of camera 290 [information detected by the detector] and the identification information stored in individual control device 452 are compared, and items that match identification information 460 of leaded components 410a are… identified as a pickup target [pickable] component” [0082]. An unpickable component is a component that does not match the identification information.).
Ikeyama stores the dimensions of the component, and, for the example in paragraph [0051], Ikeyama calculates the area of two postures out of three possible postures of the component. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to calculate the area of the remaining posture, set the minimum and maximum area thresholds to a posture’s area ± a margin such that each posture can be identified, and store those thresholds as Iwaki’s “identification information” for each posture. Then, the combination of Muto/Oda/Ikeyama/Iwaki as a whole teaches all of the limitations of claim 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control method of component supply device of Muto/Oda/Ikeyama to use identification information for each posture of a component as taught by Iwaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications “to supply many types of components using the component supply device” at once (Iwaki, [0007]).
Regarding claim 6, Muto/Oda/Ikeyama/Iwaki disclose the limitations of claim 5 as addressed above. Ikeyama additionally discloses
wherein the hardware processor determines a posture of the component on a basis of the information detected by the detector and the minimum area threshold and the maximum area threshold (The control device 90 is a computer, commonly known to have a hardware processor. “Based on the acquired imaging area of the object to be sucked [derived from information detected by the detector] and the calculated minimum projection area and maximum projection area of the component…, it is determined whether the sucked object is a component or a foreign substance other than the component” [0050]. Then, “when it is determined that the object to be mounted is a component, it is also possible to detect the suction state, that is, the suction posture of the component” by comparing the stored height t of the component with the acquired height h from an image of the component; see [0061] and [0062]. Thus, the component posture is determined by identifying a component by minimum and maximum area thresholds and then comparing a component’s stored and detected heights.).
Regarding claim 7, Muto/Oda/Ikeyama/Iwaki disclose the limitations of claim 5 as addressed above, and Muto additionally discloses
wherein the storage stores a hand approach region indicating a size of the hand, the size being required when the hand picks up the component (Hand approach region: “The second region 32 is a region corresponding to a gripping margin of the robot hand 16 in each component 40” [0024] and “Each of the vertical size W1 and the horizontal size W2 of the second region 32 is set according to the size of the claw 17 of the robot hand 16” [0031]. This claw size (size of the hand) is necessarily stored in storage, for example in “the component pickup program 1 written in the recording medium 27,” in order to run the pickup program as disclosed [0027].), and
the hardware processor sets the hand approach region for the component on a basis of the information detected by the detector (“In the setting unit 2 [run by processor 21], the position of each component 40 included in the image is identified and… the contour shape of each component 40 is extracted (see FIG. 5 b), and the first region 31, the second region 32 [hand approach region], and the proximity region 33 are set for each component 40,” where the image is information detected by the detector [0032]. See also [0021] and [0028].) and
determines whether the component is a component that is pickable or a component that is unpickable (The overlapping state of the component can be assigned a type ‘isolated’ or a type ‘candidate’: “when [the proximity region 33, including the component shape region 31 and hand approach region 32, of] the component A does not overlap the first regions 31 of all the other components, …‘the component A is the isolated component 41’. On the other hand, when the proximity region 33 of the component A overlaps the first region 31 of only the component B and does not overlap the first region 31 of another component, ...‘the component A is the candidate component 42’” [0024]. The isolated component is pickable and the candidate component is unpickable. See also [0020], [0032-0033], and [0035].).
Regarding claim 8, Muto/Oda/Ikeyama/Iwaki disclose the limitations of claim 7 as addressed above, and Muto additionally discloses
wherein the hardware processor determines whether the component is a component that is pickable or a component that is unpickable according to whether or not there is another component or an obstacle in the hand approach region (See “when setting the movement target, it is a condition that the movement distance of the candidate [unpickable] part 42 is equal to or less than the separation distance… to avoid a situation in which the moving target collides with the peripheral wall portion 14 and does not become the isolated component 41” [0056]. Therefore, the isolated (pickable) component has no other component (see above [0020] and [0024]) or other obstacle (such as the wall 14) in its proximity region 33, which contains the hand approach region 32. A component (such as the candidate part 42) that does have a component or obstacle in its proximity region 33 is unpickable. See also paragraph [0035], where the processor runs the calculation unit 5 that calculates the separation distance, defined as the “distance between the peripheral wall portion 14 of the movable tray 11 and the candidate component 42 with reference to the movement direction,” and the movement distance.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto in view of Oda, and further in view of Noda et al. (US 9469035 B2; hereafter “Noda”).
Regarding claim 9, Muto discloses
detecting the component loaded on the picker base (See “a plurality of components 40 (workpieces) placed on a movable tray 11 are photographed by a camera 15” [0011].) and
determining a state of the component (“The information of the image photographed by the camera 15 is transmitted to the control device 20” and “the overlapping state.. of each component 40 [is] grasped by known image processing” [0012]);
determining whether the component is a component that is pickable or a component that is unpickable by an arm and a hand on a basis of the state of the component (See “The above determination of the isolated [pickable] component 41 and the candidate [unpickable] component 42 is determined in accordance with the overlapping state between the first region 31 of the other component and the proximity region 33 of the own component” [0024]. “When an isolated component 41 is present in an image, the pickup unit 3 causes the robot hand 16 to pick up the isolated component 41” [0033]. See also paragraphs [0020] and [0032].);
calculating an operation amount for rearranging the component that is unpickable to a rearrangement position (“The calculation unit 5 calculates in which direction and to what extent the candidate part 42 should be moved in order to eliminated the overlap between the candidate part 42 and another part,” such that the unpickable candidate part 42 becomes the pickable isolated part 41 [0035]. See also [0020] and [0024].);
determining there is no interference between an obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (At the component’s original position, interference with “the candidate [unpickable] component 42 is determined in accordance with the overlapping state between the first region 31 of the other component and the proximity region 33 of the own component,” where the other component is a possible obstacle [0024]. It is determined there is no interference with the candidate component 42 (and that the candidate component 42 is the isolated component 41) “when the component [42] does not overlap the first regions 31 of all the other components” [0024]. At the component’s expected rearrangement position, interference with the peripheral wall portion 14 is determined by comparing the separation distance between the candidate component 42 and peripheral wall portion 14 in the movement direction and the movement distance [0043]. See “At this time, it is preferable to operate the actuator 13 after confirming that the movement distance of the candidate part 42 is equal to or less than the separation distance from the peripheral wall portion 14”—that there is no interference between the candidate component’s expected rearrangement position and an obstacle [0043].);
controlling… to move the component that is unpickable to the rearrangement position on a basis of the calculated operation amount in response to the determination that there is no interference between the obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (“The control unit 6 controls the operation of the movable tray 11 to move the candidate component 42 based on the movement distance, the movement direction, and the separation distance of the candidate component 42 calculated by the calculation unit 5” using actuator(s) 13 [0043]. See “At this time, it is preferable to operate the actuator 13 after confirming that the movement distance of the candidate part 42 is equal to or less than the separation distance from the peripheral wall portion 14… the moving target may be determined on the condition that the separation distance is equal to or greater than the moving distance”—that the actuator(s) 13 moves the candidate component 42 when there is no interference between the candidate component’s expected rearrangement position and an obstacle [0043]. All isolated (pickable) components are preferentially picked before candidate (unpickable) components; see [0033] and [0034].).
However, Muto does not explicitly teach “loading a component on a picker base” and “controlling the arm and the hand to move the component that is unpickable to the rearrangement position.”
Oda, in the same field of endeavor (component supply devices), teaches
…an arm and a hand… (See taking out device 10 having a robot arm 22 and robot hand 24 in Fig. 1. See “Then, arm 22 is upwardly moved while keeping this state [gripping an article 18], and article 18 is conveyed to a predetermined place” [col. 4, lines 20-39]. See also col. 3, lines 18-34 and col. 6, lines 16-27.);
calculating an operation amount for rearranging the component that is unpickable to a rearrangement position (See “When an interference occurs, positional information and postural information at each teach point of a series of teach points in the reference operation program are corrected based on information from vision sensor 16 or 30” [col. 4, lines 40-54] so that the posture of article 18 is corrected to a posture for which hand 24 can take the article 18 out of the container 20 [col. 5, lines 11-33]. The adjustment of the position/posture of the hand 24 to correct the posture of the article 18 is a calculated operation amount adjusting the reference operation program to the actual positions and postures of the hand 24 and article 18 [col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 20]. See also col. 1, line 58 to col. 2, line 30; col. 4, lines 6-19; col. 5, lines 42-51; and Fig. 5.),
determining there is no interference between an obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (At the component’s original position, whether there is interference with container 20 is determined in step S3 of Fig. 2 [col. 4, lines 6-19]. See also col. 4, lines 40-62].);
controlling the arm and the hand to move the component that is unpickable to the rearrangement position on a basis of the calculated operation amount in response to the determination that there is no interference between the obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (See “In the next step S5, an operation for correcting the posture of [unpickable] article 18 to be taken out by using hand 24 [connected to arm 22] is carried out. For example, since article 18 to be taken out is significantly inclined relative to the posture in which hand 24 can represent the reference position/posture without interfering with container 20 [obstacle] as shown in FIG. 3a, hand 24 approaches and comes into contact with article 18 to be taken out from a side to which the article is inclined (the left side), and hand 24 pushes article 18 to be taken out toward the side opposed to the approach side so as to correct the posture of the article” to a pickable state [col. 5, lines 11-20]. This is a calculated adjustment (operation amount) to the reference operation program [col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 1] when the posture of article 18 is unpickable but able to be moved to a pickable posture (rearrangement position without interference from container 20). See also col. 4, lines 20-54 and col. 6, lines 16-27.).
In combination, Muto/Oda teaches adjusting a reference pickup operation program (Oda, col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 20) to control a robot arm and hand to correct a state of an article/component (Oda, col. 5, lines 11-20) by moving the article/component in a certain direction (Oda, col. 5, lines 11-20; Muto, [0035]) for a certain distance (Muto, [0035]) when the posture of article 18 is unpickable but there is no interference between the obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position and article 18 is able to be moved to a pickable posture (Oda, col. 5, lines 11-20 and Figs. 4 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the picking device of Muto to rearrange unpickable components and supply a picked component to a predetermined place as taught by Oda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of completing “delivery to the next process,” such as “assembly” or “inspection” (Muto, [0002]) and converting unpickable components to pickable components by correcting the posture of a specific unpickable component (Oda; col. 6, lines 16-34).
However, Muto/Oda does not explicitly teach “loading a component on a picker base.”
Noda, in the same field of endeavor (component supply), discloses
A component supply method comprising: loading a component on a picker base (See Fig. 1. Robot 3 moves components from bulk component box 2 to temporary placing table 4 (picker base). Components are then supplied to pallet 8 by robot group 6.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the component supply method of Muto to load components on a picker base as taught by Noda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of throwing components “onto the temporary placing table 4 [so that] entangled components are disentangled” (Noda, col. 7, lines 4-10). Additionally, “when the removal mechanism 4a is provided to the temporary placing table 4, there is an advantage that error recovery is rapidly performed to suppress an increase in tact time” (Noda, col. 7, lines 42-45).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto in view of Oda, and further in view of Matsumoto (US 11122721 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Muto/Oda disclose the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Muto additionally discloses
wherein the hardware processor… determines whether or not rearrangement of the component is possible in a case where the state of the component is standing/protruding (In one interpretation, the hardware processor determines whether or not rearrangement is possible when determining the states of the components—which components 40 are candidate parts 42 and which components 40 are excluded from movement (rearrangement) calculations. See in Table 1, components 1, 2, and 5 are candidate parts 42 (later, “The calculation unit 5 calculates in which direction and to what extent the candidate part 42 should be moved in order to eliminate the overlap between the candidate part 42 and another part” [0035]), but component 3 “is excluded from the candidate parts 42 because it overlaps with the first regions 31 of two other parts” (no movement calculations are performed because rearrangement is not possible) [0034]. The determination of which components 40 are candidate parts 42 or excluded is performed by extraction unit 4 [0034], which is part of the component pick up program 1 [0029] run by processor 21 of control device 20 [0025-0027]. This determination is performed for all components 40, regardless of the state of any particular component, which means this determination occurs in a case where the state of a component is standing/protruding. In another interpretation, the hardware processor determines whether or not rearrangement is possible when determining which of the candidate parts 42 to set as a movement target (component that will be rearranged in the current control cycle). See “when the isolated part 41 does not exist [all components have interference with an obstacle]… the moving distances and moving directions for eliminating the overlapping state of the individual candidate parts 42 are calculated (step A8). In addition, the separation distances between the individual candidate components 42 and the peripheral wall portion 14 are calculated (step A9), and the candidate component 42 that is sufficiently separated from the peripheral wall portion 14 in comparison with the movement distances of the candidate components 42 and has the smallest movement distances is selected as the movement target (step A10)” [0051]. Only selecting a candidate part 42 as a movement target (component to be rearranged) when the candidate part 42 has a separation distance from the peripheral wall portion 14 greater than the calculated movement distance in the movement direction is determining that rearrangement of the component is possible [0056]. When a candidate part 42 is not selected as a movement target because the separation distance is less than the movement distance, this is a determination that rearrangement of the component is not possible, at least in this particular control cycle. This determination is performed by the control unit 6 [0043], which is part of the component pick up program 1 [0029] run by processor 21 of control device 20 [0025-0027]. Since identification of the state of the component as a candidate part 42 does not exclude the possibility that the state of the component is also standing/protruding, this determination occurs in a case where the state of a component is standing/protruding. See also [0037] and [0052].).
However, Muto/Oda does not explicitly teach “wherein the hardware processor determines whether or not the state of the component is standing/protruding.”
Matsumoto, in the same field of endeavor (component supply devices), discloses
wherein the hardware processor determines whether or not the state of the component is standing/protruding (See “it is determined whether the shape of the upper surface of leaded component 410 calculated based on the image data… matches the shape of leaded component 410 based on the first orientation component image data [a first state] or the shape of leaded component 410 based on the second orientation component image data” (a second state), or a third state “with leaded component 410c in the third orientation, [where] leads 414 are arranged on the upper surface, meaning that the leaded component 410 cannot be appropriately held by chuck 332 due to the leads 414 getting in the way” [col. 10, lines 32-53]. Both the second orientation/state 410b and third orientation/state 410c can be considered states that are “standing/protruding” because in either state the upper side captured by camera 290 has an area less than the area of the upper side in the first orientation/state 410a (see Fig. 13). See also “when distinguishing between orientations of scattered leaded components 410, components are given as leaded component 410a in a first orientation, leaded component 410b in a second orientation, and leaded component 410c in a third orientation” [col. 9, line 57 to col. 10, line 8]. The control device 34, which controls component mounter 10, includes a computer [col. 7, line 48 to col. 8, line 19], and a generic computer has a hardware processor in this field. See also Fig. 12.), and
determines whether or not rearrangement of the component is possible in a case where the state of the component is standing/protruding (See “if the image component shape matches the first memorized component shape or the second memorized component shape [the component state is the first or second state], the leaded component according to that image component shape is set as a pickup target component. That is, leaded component 410a in the first orientation and leaded component 410b in the second orientation are set as a pickup target component, and leaded component 410c in the third orientation is not set as a pickup target component… because, with leaded component 410c in the third orientation, leads 414 are arranged on the upper surface, meaning that the leaded component 410 cannot be appropriately held by chuck 332 due to the leads 414 getting in the way” [col. 10, lines 32-53]. As above, both the second orientation/state 410b and third orientation/state 410c can be considered states that are “standing/protruding”. Picking up a component is a form of rearrangement, so determining whether to set a component 410 as a pickup target component when the component is in the second state 410b or third state 410c is a determination of whether or not rearrangement of the component is possible in a case where the state of the component is standing/protruding. See additional conditions on determination of whether or not pickup is possible in col. 10, line 54 to col. 11, line 20 and col. 12, line 31 to col. 13, line 24.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the component supply device of Muto/Oda to determine a component is standing/protruding and determine whether the component can be rearranged as taught by Matsumoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving “the efficiency of component pickup” (Matsumoto; col. 11, line 57 to col. 12, line 12) by determining whether the side surface length of a component (the expected side surface length changes based on the state/orientation of the component as determined above) indicates if another component will interfere with pickup (Matsumoto; col. 10, line 54 to col. 13, line 24).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moya Ly whose telephone number is (571)272-5832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am-6:00 pm ET.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/MOYA LY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights