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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 13-25 and 40-44 in the reply filed on 11/19/25 is acknowledged. Claims 13-25, 40-44 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-15, 20-25, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bufi et al. (CA 3152907).
For claims 13, 14, 21-25, Bufi teaches an apparatus in the form of an inspection system 100 (see Figure 1) that is used to inspect articles/items/products (110) for defects using images taken with an imaging system. The inspection system is disclosed as being located at an inspection station, see paragraph 078. The applicant should take notice that the electronic device that is referred to in the claims is the intended use of the system and is not part of the claims scope. The articles in Bufi that are being inspected satisfy the claimed electronic device that is the intended use of the inspection kiosk. The intended use of the types of articles the inspection system is contemplated as being used with does not receive weight unless it defines structure to the system in some manner.
The claimed support member is satisfied a first and/or second members 120a and/or 120b, for example see figure 1. An embodiment for the support members of Bufi is shown in figure 1, where the support members are used to grip/hold the item being inspected and are used to rotate a full 360 degrees to allow the camera to take images of the entire item being inspected. This satisfies the ability for the support member to receive an item in a first orientation with one side of the item of the item in view of the camera, and then rotating the item about a pivot axis (see the arrow 126 of Figure 1 indicating rotation of the item) so that the camera can take images of the side of the item that was downward and not facing the camera. See paragraphs 114, 177, 246, 250, 251, 276 where then claimed functional ability is disclosed by Bufi. The claimed ability for the support member to rotate the item about a pivot axis as claimed, with at least 90 or 360 degrees of rotation is disclosed by Bufi. This includes the rotation about a horizontal axis as is claimed in claim 41.
For claim 15, the drive shaft that is claimed is inherent to figure 1 as far as the support members work by having an actuator (driveshaft) move the support member into position to hold an item to be inspected, and that allows the support members to be rotated about a horizontal pivot access 360 degrees. Bufi teaches the use of motors and actuators for the moveable components to the system, see paragraphs 105, 117, 119, 122. The motor is taught as providing rotational motion for the support elements, which requires a drive shaft to work. The drive shaft that is claimed is the component of Bufi that engages the support members 120 to allow them to rotate via the motor.
For claim 20, the wall portions claimed are the planar parts of the support members 120a, 120b that engage the item being inspected, as can be seen in figure 1. Each support member contacts a different side of an article being inspected and that allows for rotation of the item as is claimed. The innermost edges of the support members form a wall and are disclosed as contacting an item being inspected. This satisfies what is claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 40-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bufi et al. (CA 3152907) in view of Greene et al. (20170249729).
For claims 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, Bufi teaches an inspection system 100 (see Fig. 1) that is used to inspect articles/items/products (110) for defects using images taken with an imaging system. The inspection system is disclosed as being located at an inspection station, see paragraph 078. The applicant should take notice that the electronic device that is referred to in the claims is the intended use of the system and is not part of the claims scope. The articles in Bufi that are being inspected satisfy the claimed electronic device that is the intended use of the inspection kiosk. The structure to the kiosk is given weight, not the intended use for the types of articles the inspection system is contemplated as being used with.
Bufi teaches that the inspection system includes cameras such as imaging unit(s) 122 are used to take images of an article that is being inspected, see paragraphs 076, 078, 079, 130, 138. The imaging unit is discussed by Bufi in paragraphs 129-159. This satisfies the claimed camera having a field of view.
The claimed support member is satisfied by members 120a and/or 120b, for example see figure 1. An embodiment for the support members of Bufi is shown in figure 1, where the support members are used to grip/hold the item being inspected and are used to rotate a full 360 degrees to allow the camera to take images of the entire item being inspected. This satisfies the ability for the support member to receive an item in a first orientation with one side of the item of the item in view of the camera, and then rotating the item about a pivot axis (see the arrow 126 of Figure 1 indicating rotation of the item) so that the camera can take images of the side of the item that was downward and not facing the camera. See paragraphs 114, 177, 246, 250, 251, 276 where then claimed functional ability is disclosed by Bufi. The claimed ability for the support member to rotate the item about a pivot axis as claimed, with at least 90 or 360 degrees of rotation is disclosed by Bufi. This includes the rotation about a horizontal axis as is claimed in claim 41.
Not disclosed by Bufi is that the inspection system that is disclosed as being at an inspection station, has the form of a kiosk with a housing.
Greene discloses an item inspection system that uses a robotic article manipulator to manipulate an item so that images can be obtained of the article to detect defects. Greene discloses that the system of figure 1 constitutes an inspection station, see paragraph 105. An item is placed into the inspection station and an inspection occurs, see paragraphs 110, 111, 114. This reference is analogous to Bufi as far as both are directed to inspection stations that use cameras to take images of items so that an inspection can occur. Greene teaches that the inspection system includes a housing 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inspection system of Bufi with an inspection station that has a housing as is taught by Greene, and that would define kiosk type of structure (a kiosk is a broad term that does not define any specific structure other than that it has a housing). It would have been obvious to provide a housing (very broad term that does not require a specific shape or configuration for the housing) to the system of Bufi so the components are held in a housing.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 16, 19, 23, 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowles et al. (20130046699)) in view of Bufi et al. (CA 3152907).
For claim 13, 14, 16, 19, 23, 24, 25 Bowles teaches a kiosk for inspecting an electronic device. The kiosk includes a support member 725 that is shown as being a robotic arm with a hand, see paragraph 059 and figures 20-22. Bowles teaches that the support member can rotate, oscillate, and grip when discussing its abilities with respect to inspecting an electronic device such as a phone. The support surface is considered to be satisfied by the surface 700 that the device being inspected is placed on. The support member includes a hinge member that is satisfied by any of the hinges 727, 728, 728d, that allow the robotic arm and hand to move, as is shown in figures 21-23, and that are proximate the support surface. The figures show arrows indicating how the art and hand can rotate about move, which allows for movement about hinge members to articulate the arm and hand of Bowles.
Not disclosed is that the support member is used to receive the electronic device so that it can be rotated about a pivot axis as claimed, to be able to move from a first orientation to a 2nd orientation as claimed.
Bufi discloses an inspection system 100 (see Figure 1) that is used to inspect articles/items/products (110) for defects using images taken with an imaging system. Bufi discloses that an article manipulator is used to move an article during inspection using a camera. This reference is analogous to Bowles as far as both are directed to inspection stations that use cameras to take images of items so that an inspection can occur. Of interest is that Bufi also teaches that a robotic arm can be used to move a camera around an article to be inspected and discloses that the arm can function autonomously and can perform movements. This is teaching that a robotic arm can move and be used in the process of inspecting the article. The examiner cites to Bufi to show that a robotic arm such as in Bowles, with the shown structure, is capable of grasping and moving the device being inspected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bowles with the ability to manipulate the electronic device being inspected by using the robotic arm and robotic hand that is shown in figures 20-22 to rotate the device as claimed. This would allow the robotic arm and hand to have movements like a human arm and hand and would allow for rotation about an axis such that the article can be moved as claimed. The claim is reciting that the support member is configured to receive the electronic device and can rotate above a pivot axis so that the article can be moved from one direction to an opposite direction. The robotic arm and hand assembly of Bowles can do the same thing as far as it is disclosed as being able to grip an article and can rotate the article. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide that the robotic arm is capable of moving as claimed so that an article being inspected can be moved from one direction to another direction or moved in any direction that one desires. The pending claims are an apparatus claim where the ability of the structure to move as claimed is being recited. It would have been obvious to provide the claimed movement ability to the robotic arm of Bowles so that the arm can grip and move the article being inspected in any manner desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 18, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hur et al. (20210254966) teaches in inspection system that holds an item and discloses the rotation of the item about a pivot axis as claimed during inspection. Hur is arguably another anticipatory prior art reference for claim 1 given the breadth of the claim.
Dion et al. (20210110440, 20170323279), Forutanpour et al. (20170356857), Yakoda et al. (2008088833), Tamamoto et al. (6741731), Oda (6606154), and Fossey et al. (5988971) disclose inspection systems that are used to inspect electronic devices or chips or other items. This includes structure to hold and item during inspection and are considered to be relevant to the disclosed and claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626