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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “image processing part”, “comparison processing part” in claims 1-9 and 12. Per the specification these limitations are being interpreted as a “processor such as a Central Processing Unit (CPU) or a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU)” from paragraph [0031].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200306982A1 (Itou) in light of US 20120038936 A1 (Ahn).
As to claim 1, Itou teaches a foolproof device (100, Fig. 1) provided to a manufacturing process, comprising:
an imaging part (camera 4) that captures a plurality of identifiable marks are (M1-3, [0016]);
an image processing part (control device 5, Fig. 2, [0021], ll. 1-4; [0022]) that obtains state data including a coordinate position of each mark from at least one captured image [0025] captured by the imaging part (camera 4);
a storage (storage unit 11 of control device 5) that stores reference data obtained by the image processing part [0023], the reference data including a reference position of each mark [0023]; and
a comparison processing part (reference positional relationship determination unit 16 of control device 5) that compares the reference data stored in the storage with the current state data obtained by the image processing part [0029-31], and outputs a result of the comparison regarding at least some of the plurality of marks [0029-31].
Itou is silent to: an object on which a plurality of identifiable marks are provided.
However, Ahn teaches a system and method for measuring the position and posture of a workpiece [0008] with a plurality of alignment marks [0010], [0046] (Fig. 1 AM on W).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art of Itou to include marks on the workpiece (W) in order to be able to track the position of it and ensure precision placement.
As to claim 2, the combination teaches the foolproof device according to claim 1.
Itou teaches: wherein the storage (11) stores a reference coordinate system set ([0023] teaches stores images captured by camera and the reference positional relationship) by capturing a plurality of pieces of reference data provided on a placement surface on which the object is placed (Fig. 1 shows article W on target device T with marks M1-M3), and the image processing part (mark relative position calculation unit 13 of control device 5) obtains state data including a coordinate position of each mark in the reference coordinate system [0025].
As to claim 3, the combination teaches the foolproof device according to claim 1,
Itou teaches: the image processing part (mark relative position calculation unit 13 of control device 5) obtains the state data of the first mark from the captured image including the first mark ([0023-25] teaches camera 4 captures images and calculation unit 13 calculates relative positions of M1-M3).
Itou is silent to: wherein the object includes a base part with a plurality of first marks provided on a main surface.
However, Ahn teaches a base part (Fig. 1 shows movement table 100 supported by stage 110) on which the workpiece is placed on [0010] with a mark (FM) on a main surface [0046].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art of Itou to include the base part of Ahn with a mark on it in order to be able to identify where on the base part the workpiece has been placed, further it would have been obvious to include more than one mark to have a more precise way of determining where the workpiece is placed.
As to claim 5, the combination teaches the foolproof device according to claim 2.
Itou teaches: wherein the image processing part (16 of control device 5) obtains the state data further including at least one of a distance between marks and an angle formed by a plurality of marks with respect to a predetermined direction ([0029] teaches distances between the marks).
As to claim 6, the combination teaches the foolproof device according to claim 1.
Itou teaches: wherein the imaging part (camera 4, Fig. 1) captures the object placed on a placement surface of a measuring device ([0031] teaches camera 4 captures images of delivery), and the comparison processing part compares the reference data with the state data [0031], and causes a reporting part to report a placement state of the object on the placement surface ([0030, 0040, 0050] teach displacement notification unit 17).
As to claim 7, the combination teaches the foolproof device according to claim 6.
Itou teaches: wherein the comparison processing part determines whether or not a degree of deviation of a coordinate position ([0029] teaches comparing positions) indicated by the state data with respect to a reference position indicated by the reference data exceeds a predetermined value ([0029] teaches threshold), and causes a display part serving as the reporting part to display a result of the determination ([0030] teaches displacement notification unit notifies displacement).
As to claim 8, the combination teaches the foolproof device according to claim 6.
Itou teaches: wherein the comparison processing part causes a second report indicating that the object is not located in the predetermined manner to be reported ([0030] teaches that the displacement notification unit notifies the possibility of displacement based on the determination of the reference positional relationship determination unit 16).
Itou is silent to: a first report indicating that the object is located at a predetermined position on the placement surface in a predetermined manner.
Itou is silent to: a first report indicating that the object is located at a predetermined position on the placement surface in a predetermined manner.
However, the examiner takes Office Notice that generating a notification when something it correctly placed in a predetermined manner is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. As for the same reason Itou discloses doing so when the object isn't in place, obviously relaying information about when it is gives the user a better understanding of the operational state of the system under use.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Itou with a first report indicating that the object is located at a predetermined position on the placement surface in a predetermined manner in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency and expected results in obviously relaying to a user the operational information that the object is in the correct predetermined manner allows for further processing to be performed.
As to claim 9, the combination teaches the foolproof device according to claim 6.
Itou teaches: wherein when one object (W) out of the plurality of objects (Fig. 1 shows plurality of objects W on cart 2) set in a standby position is moved by a delivering device (mobile cart 2, Fig. 1) and placed on the placement surface of the measuring device (placed on target device T).
Itou does not teach: the imaging part captures the mark of the one object.
However, as explained previously it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art of Itou with the prior art of Ahn to include marks on the workpiece (W) in addition to the marks on the target device (T), therefore it would have further been obvious for the imaging part to capture the marks of the object to ensure it was placed on target device (T) correctly.
As to claim 10, the combination teaches the foolproof device according to claim 1.
Itou teaches: wherein each of the plurality of marks (M1-3) is a mark capable of constructing a three-dimensional coordinate system with three axial directions orthogonal to each other, whose origin is a center of the mark ([0025] teaches mark relative position calculation unit 13 calculates the relative positions of the marks relative to the cart 2 , i.e. the coordinates of the centers of each of the marks in the coordinate system of the transfer device 1 with the cart 2 as reference, based on the captured images of the camera 4).
As to claim 12, Itou teaches a storage medium storing a program ([0021-22] teach control device 5 with storage unit 11) for causing a processor to execute the steps of ([0023] teaches storage unit stores information required in the control of the transfer device): causing an imaging part to capture an object on which a plurality of identifiable marks are provided [0023]; obtaining state data including a coordinate position of each mark from at least one captured image captured by the imaging part [0023] (Fig. 2); and
comparing reference data including a reference position of each mark stored in a storage with the current state data obtained and outputting a result of the comparison regarding at least some of the plurality of marks [0023] (Fig; 2).
Claim(s) 4, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200306982A1 (Itou) and US 20120038936 A1 (Ahn) in light of US 4054281 A (Martinsson).
As to claim 4, the combination teaches the foolproof device according to claim 2.
The combination is silent to: wherein the object includes a movable portion, the movable portion being provided movably with respect to the base part, on which a plurality of second marks are provided, and the image processing part obtains the state data of the second mark from the captured image including the second mark.
However, Martinsson teaches a clamping device used to clamp workpieces with a pivotable lever (Col. 1 lines 5-15). Martinsson teaches wherein the object includes a movable portion (levers 6, Fig. 4), the movable portion being provided movably with respect to the base part (Fig. 4 shows pivotable levers 6, with respect to insert 15 which is being interpreted as the “base” as the workpiece is placed on it),
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include the clamping device of Martinsson to secure the article while conducting processing [0013 of Itou] and avoid any shifts.
The combination is further silent to: [the movable portion] on which a plurality of second marks are provided, and the image processing part obtains the state data of the second mark from the captured image including the second mark.
As explained previously, the teaches markers on target device (T) and workpiece (W), therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include additional markers on the movable portion (the levers) of clamping device in order to be able to recognize if the article is in a processing state (clamped) or a post-processing state (un-clamped) at which point it would be ready for transfer.
As to claim 11, the combination teaches the foolproof device according to claim 4.
The combination teaches: wherein the object includes a workpiece (W, Fig. 1 of Itou, [0014]) that is measured by a measuring device (100 of Itou), a base plate that supports the workpiece (stage 100 of Ahn).
The combination is silent to: and a clamp that fixes the workpiece to the base plate, and the movable portion is a lever that is provided to the clamp and is movable with respect to the base plate.
However, Martinsson teaches: a base plate that supports the workpiece (15), and a clamp that fixes the workpiece to the base plate (levers 6 clamp workpiece to base), and the movable portion is a lever that is provided to the clamp and is movable with respect to the base plate (levers 6 form clamp, Fig. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include the device of Martinsson to secure the workpiece during processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Maya Hendija whose telephone number is (571)272-0269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:00-16:00 (MST).
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/MAYA HENDIJA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights