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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wen (CN 113387190 A and Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Wen shows a system (see all Figures) including a stacking apparatus (100) of a sheet-shaped workpiece (a silicon steel sheet 6), the stacking apparatus comprising:
a pick-and-place machine (2, 5) that picks up a sheet-shaped workpiece (see a circular silicon steel sheet 6 or a workpiece) cut out from a sheet material (a silicon steel sheet) to hold the workpiece (see the circular silicon steel sheet 6 is inherently cut out from a large sheet”) and transports the workpiece in a lifted state to stacking position (see Figures 1-2) to place down the workpiece onto the stacking position so that the workpiece are sequentially stacked (Figures 1-2);
a camera (page 20, the last paragraph states that “the camera device is communicatively connected with the robotic arm 5 to capture the silicon steel The keyway square opening 603 feature on the sheet 6 is transferred to the robotic arm 5”) provided on the pick-and-place machine to capture an image of the workpiece being held in the lifted state by the pick-and-place machine (see Wen’s claim 1 “the camera device is communicatively connected with the robotic arm to transfer the feature of the keyway on the silicon steel sheet to the robotic arm”); and
a controller (since it has a camera and a robotic arm, it is inherently having a controller) configured to:
calculate a position shift of the workpiece being help in the lifted state by the pick-and-place machine based on the image of the workpiece captured by the camera (see summary of the invention “a camera device used to photograph the keyway square opening feature on the silicon steel sheet provided in the fine positioning mechanism; The keyway square opening feature on the silicon steel sheet is transferred to a robotic arm, and the robotic arm adjusts the angle of the silicon steel sheet according to the keyway square opening feature captured by the camera device, and moves the silicon steel sheet set in the fine positioning mechanism to the center positioning column” that means there is a calculation position of the workpiece during stacking) and
control the pick-and-place machine to adjust, based on the calculated position shift, picking-up of an equivalent workpiece to be picked up by the pick-and- place machine in a future operation (see above “the robotic arm adjusts the angle of the silicon steel sheet according to the keyway square opening feature captured by the camera device”).
Regarding claim 2, Wen shows wherein the controller is further configured to control the pick-and-place machine to compensate for placement of the workpiece at the stacking position based on the image captured by the camera (see the discussion in claim 1 above “the robotic arm adjusts the angle of the silicon steel sheet according to the keyway square opening feature captured by the camera device”)
Regarding claim 5, Wen shows that the camera captures the image to include a tab formed commonly in the workpiece to be stacked in the image (see the discussion in claim 1 above “the keyway square opening feature” that means there is a tab to form the keyway square opening feature ); and
wherein the controller is configured to calculate the position shift of the workpiece based on the image including the tab (see the discussion in claim 1 above and Para. 135). See below for a tab.
PNG
media_image1.png
284
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, 2, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen in view of Singh (US 2021/0260758) and Roland (DE 102012021245A1 and Translation).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, If one argues that Wen’s camera is NOT on the robotic arm or the pick-and-place machine.
Singh shows a robotic arm (Figure 1) having camera(s) mounted on the robotic arm (Para. 73).
Roland shows a pick-and-place machine (Figure 1) having a camera(17) mounted on the pick-and-place machine (Figure 1).
Based on the teachings above, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the machine of Wen to have the camera mounted on the robotic arm or the pick-and-place machine, as taught by Singh and Roland, since this is known an alternative way for the same purpose of mounting the camera on the system.
Further, it is well known to have the camera is on the robotic arm or the pick-and-place machine. Since claim has not recited that having any specific structure of the camera on a specific location of the system solve any stated problem or is a criticality for any particular purpose and it appears that the camera on somewhere of the system communicatively connected with the robotic arm 5 to capture the silicon steel would perform equally well while being on the robotic arm or the pick-and-place machine, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Akita (EP3556695) shows a stacking device (Figure 5) without a picking-up machine and a camera.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 6/8/2026
Prosecution Insights