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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a central axis of the object” (claim 3), “a motor” (claim 9), “its central axis” (claim 9), “a connecting rod” (claim 11), “an assembly hole” (claim 12), “a plurality of connecting rods” (claim 15), “a plurality of distance sensors spaced in a circumferential direction of the object pickup device, wherein distances between the plurality of distance sensors and a central axis of the object pickup device are different from one another” (claim 18), “a central axis of object pickup device” (claim 18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both a calculation device and a distance sensor (specification, paragraph 0014).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: S10 (paragraph 0026), S20 (paragraph 0027), S30 (paragraph 0028), S40 (paragraph 0029), S50 (paragraph 0031), S60 (paragraph 0032), S70 (paragraph 0033).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, “the distance data” (line 10) lacks antecedent basis. “[T]he distance data” should be “the distance”.
Claim 5, “a projection of the suction cup and the opening in an axial direction of the object pickup device do not overlap” is unclear. Examiner interprets the limitation to read -- a projection of the suction cup on the top surface and the opening of the top surface in an axial direction of the object pickup device --.
Claim 9, “its central axis” (line 5) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner suggests changing “its central axis” to -- the central axis of the object pickup device --.
Claim 11, “the first bracket to move axially relative to the second bracket along the axial direction of the object pickup device” is unclear. The limitation should read -- the first bracket to move [[axially]] relative to the second bracket along a central axis the central axis
Claim 19, “the distance data” (line 16) lacks antecedent basis. “[T]he distance data” should be “the distance”.
Claim 20,
“a projection of the suction cup and the opening in the axial direction of the object pickup device overlap” is unclear. Examiner interprets the limitation to read – a projection of the suction cup on the top surface and the opening of the top surface in the axial direction of the object pickup device --.
“a projection of the suction cup and the opening in the axial direction of the object pickup device do not overlap” is unclear. Examiner interprets the limitation to read – a projection of the suction cup on the top surface and the opening of the top surface in the axial direction of the object pickup device --.
“the axial direction of the object pickup device” (lines 3-4) lacks antecedent basis. “[T]he axial direction of the object pickup device” should be – an axial direction of the object pickup device --.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Note Regarding 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 19 recite an abstract idea of “calculate a distance from the top surface of the object to the distance sensor and a position of an edge of an opening on the top surface of the object based on the distance data collected by the distance sensor as the top surface is scanned” (mathematical concept).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claims recite particular machine for performing the abstract idea comprising including
an object pickup device, including:
a first bracket;
a suction cup arranged on the first bracket and adapted to be affixed to a
top surface of an object to be picked up; and
a distance sensor arranged on the first bracket and adapted to rotate with
the first bracket to scan the top surface of the object; and
a calculation device.
Thus, the claims are indicative of integration into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, claims 1 and 19 and their respective dependent claims 2-18 and 20 are patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ban (US 20140121836) in view of Hayashi et al. JP 2002174601 and Heinzmann et al. (US 2021/0213626).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Ban discloses an object pickup system and method (Fig. 1), comprising:
an object pickup device (10), including:
a first bracket (mount for attaching 22);
a suction cup (22, paragraph 0030, lines 5-6) arranged on the first bracket
(Fig. 1) and adapted to be affixed to a top surface of an object (14) to be picked up (paragraph 0030, lines 5-6; Fig. 1); and
a distance sensor to scan the top surface of the object (scanning of
surface of object/workpiece is implied by sensor 28 determining distance between sensor and object/workpiece, paragraph 0049, lines 7-9); and
a calculation device (34) operatively connected to the distance sensor (Fig. 1) and adapted to calculate a distance from the top surface of the object to the distance sensor (paragraph 0049, lines 5-9).
Ban does not disclose the distance sensor arranged on the first bracket and adapted to rotate with the first bracket.
Hayashi et al. discloses a distance sensor arranged for rotating to scan an object surface (paragraph 0010, lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to arrange the distance sensor on a bracket/mount in view of Ban, see rotating mount, Figs. 7’ s, for rotating the distance sensor to scan an object surface and allowing the suction cup 22 to pick up the object (14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Ban with rotating a distance sensor as disclosed by Hayashi et al. for the purpose of scanning an object surface.
Further, Ban does not disclose calculate a position of an edge of an opening on the top surface of the object based on the distance data collected by the distance sensor as the top surface is scanned.
Heinzmann et al. discloses calculate a position of an edge of an opening (edge of trough, Fig. 3) on the top surface (16) of the object (12) based on the distance data collected by the distance sensor as the top surface is scanned (camera of 46 captures/identify outer surface of an object to be gripped, paragraph 0054, the capture/identification of object 12 is based on the distance between 46 and outer surface 16 of object 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Ban with calculate a position of an edge of an opening as suggested by Heinzmann et al. for the purpose of suction gripping an object (paragraph 0061) at an elevation 20 rather than at the trough (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Ban discloses the distance sensor (28, paragraph 0049, lines 8-9) is a laser distance sensor emitting a laser beam (paragraph 0033, lines 6-14) towards the top surface of the object (Fig. 1) and scans the top surface of the object with the laser beam (sensor 28 is adapted to scan, paragraph 0033, lines 7-8; Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 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.
Reasons For Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The combination as claimed wherein an object pickup system and method comprising the calculation device identifies and calculates the position of the edge of the opening based on the step change of the distance data collected by the distance sensor (claim 2) or when the distance sensor scans the top surface of the object, the driving device drives the first bracket to rotate around a rotation axis that coincides or is parallel to a central axis of the object (claim 3) or a second bracket; a connecting rod connected between the first bracket and the second bracket and adapted to enable the first bracket to move axially relative to the second bracket along the axial direction of the object pickup device; and a spring arranged on the connecting rod and compressed between the first bracket and the second bracket such that the first bracket is floatable along the axial direction of the object pickup device relative to the second bracket (claim 11) or the object pickup device includes a plurality of distance sensors spaced in a circumferential direction of the object pickup device (claim 18) or determining whether the projection of the suction cup and the opening of the object in the axial direction of the object pickup device overlap (claim 20) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Domae et al. (US 2019/0061159) discloses an object recognizer for recognizing a position and attitude of a target object based on data by a sensor (Abstract, lines 1-2).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 January 06, 2026
Prosecution Insights