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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 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.
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 and 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Relative to claims 1 and 18, “aligning a position sensor to the structure using a fiducial marker and position sensor data of the fiducial marker generated by the position sensor such that alignment of the position sensor results in the position sensor and the structure sharing a same coordinate system”, is unclear.
The phrase, “using a fiducial marker and position sensor data of the fiducial marker generated by the position sensor”, is indefinite. How is the position sensor data is being “used” and “generated” to assist with aligning the position sensor to the track/structure. Does Applicant mean that the position sensor data of the fiducial marker is the position of the fiducial marker?
The specification describes aligning the imaging device 228 to the track by adjusting the position of the imaging device 228 so that an image of the fiducial marker 440, i.e., marker image 536, appears at a predetermined location in the image. (Para. 0077 of the present application. Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that aligning the position sensor, includes adjusting the position of the sensor to the structure/track based on captured position data by the position sensor of the fiducial marker.
In Para. 0058, Applicant’s specification further explains that when the position sensor is aligned to the track, then the position sensor and the track may share the same coordinate system.
Appropriate clarification is required.
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) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cherubini et al (US PG. Pub. 2021/0373042). Cherubini discloses: a diagnostic laboratory system (Para. 0047), comprising:
a transport system (108)(Fig. 1);
an imaging device (146)(Fig. 7) aligned to the transport system (108)(Para. 0168, 0068; camera is aligned to a component, which may be a track 108), the imaging device (146) configured to generate image data representative of a component (see module, 106)(Fig. 1)(Para. 0162); and
a computer (see processor 156)(Para. 0164) configured to:
identify the component (106)(Fig. 1) in the image data (Para. 0162);
determine an alignment of the component (106)(Fig. 1) relative to the imaging device (146)(Para. 0168)(See the marker 150 for the component 106, detected by the camera 146, Para. 0162, Fig. 7);
determine a position of the component (106)(Fig. 3-4) relative to the transport system (108)(Fig. 3, 7) based on the alignment of the component (106) relative to the imaging device (146)(position data of the acquired by the camera 146 calculates alignment data based on the position deviation, and an algorithm is used to analyze the image data to determine the relative distance and alignment between the component coordinate system and the module coordinate system, and to provide fine alignment of the module 106 relative to the transport line 108; Para. 0073; 0043); and
provide an indication of a misalignment of the component (106)(Fig. 1) relative to the transport system (108) based on the alignment of the component (106)(Fig. 1) relative to the imaging device (Para. 0163; 0168; 0173); and
a fiducial marker (148)(Fig. 7) coupled to the transport system (108), and the imaging device (146) is configured to generate image data representative of the fiducial marker (148)(Para. 0162)(Fig. 7), and the computer (156) is configured to:
identify the fiducial marker (148)(Fig. 7) in the image data (Para. 0162; 0168);
determine a position of the imaging device (146)(Fig. 7-8) relative to the transport system (108)(Fig. 7-8) based on the position of the fiducial marker (148) in the image data (Para. 0162; 0168, see the component marker and module markers (148, 150) are concertedly detectable by the detector 146, see Fig. 7);
determine the position of the component (106)(Fig. 2, 7) relative to the transport system (108)(Fig. 2, 7) based on both the position of the imaging device (146) relative to the transport system (108)(Fig. 7) and the alignment of the component (106)(Fig. 7) relative to the imaging device (146)(Para. 0168).
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) 1-8, and 13-20 (as understood by the Examiner) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherubini et al (US PG. Pub. 2021/0373042) in view of Adam et al (US Patent No. 10,664,962). Relative to claims 1-8, and 13-17, Cherubini discloses:
A method of aligning a component (module, 106)(Fig. 1) to a structure (track, 108)(Fig. 1) in a diagnostic laboratory system (Para. 0047), comprising:
aligning a position sensor (146) to the structure (108);
sensing a position of the component (106)(Fig. 1) using the position sensor (146) (Para. 0162; camera senses position of module 106);
calculating a position of the component (106)(Fig. 1) relative to the position sensor (146) based at least in part on the sensing (Para. 0163; 0168; see camera pose information; also using images of marker 150 of component 106, the relative position of the component 106 to camera 146 can be determined based on the imaging, the camera’s position is known, see also Para. 0162); and
aligning the component (106)(Fig. 1) to the structure (108) based at least partially on the sensing (component 106 is aligned to track 108, based on deviation from target position; Para. 0168; 0068);
aligning the position sensor (146) comprises aligning the position sensor (146) to a transport system (108)(Para. 0168; 0068);
aligning the position sensor (146) comprises aligning the position sensor to a track (108)(Para. 0168; 0068).
aligning the component (106)(Fig. 1) comprises securing the component (106)(Fig. 1) in a fixed location after aligning the component (106)(Fig. 1) to the position sensor (146)(Para. 0170);
aligning the position sensor (146) to the structure (108) comprises affixing the position sensor to the structure (108)(Para. 0168; 0068);
aligning the position sensor (146) to the structure (108) comprises affixing an imaging device to the structure (108)(Para. 0168, securing device, such as a mount - not shown - is inherently included since the camera, 146, may be mounted to the track 108, camera 146 is inherently secured to the mount, Para. 0168);
sensing the position of the component (106)(Fig. 1) comprises capturing an image of the component (106)(Fig. 1) using the imaging device (146)(Para. 0168; 0162);
affixing a fiducial marker (148) to the structure (108) at a predetermined location (see Fig. 7), the position sensor (146) is an imaging device (Para. 0162), and aligning the position sensor (146) to the structure (108) comprises:
capturing an image of the fiducial marker (148) using the imaging device (146) (Para. 0162; 0168); and determining a location of the fiducial marker (148) relative to the imaging device (146) by analyzing the image (Para. 0162; 0168);
the component (106)(Fig. 1) is at least a portion of a housing (112) configured to at least partially enclose a module (106) of the diagnostic laboratory system (module 106 enclosed by a housing, 112 Fig. 1);
the component (106)(Fig. 1) comprises a second fiducial marker (see two markers 150 for the module 106 in Fig. 7; Para. 0162; Para. 0167, Fig. 10A discloses two module markers attached to the module 106);
attaching a second fiducial marker (see markers, 150 attached to module 106)(Fig. 7) to the component (106)(Fig. 1, 7), and sensing a position of the component (106)(Fig. 1) comprises sensing a position of the second fiducial marker (150) using the position sensor (146)(Para. 0162, detector detects at least one module marker 150 located at the module, in Fig. 7, which is described in Para. 0162, two module markers 150 are included and are detected by the detector 146);
calculating the position of the component (106)(Fig. 1) comprises calculating the position of the second fiducial marker (150) relative to the position sensor (146) based at least in part on the sensing (Para. 0162; 0164; 0165); and
aligning the component (106)(Fig. 1) to the position sensor (146) comprises aligning the second fiducial marker (150) to the position sensor (146) based at least partially on the sensing (0165; 0166);
providing a securing device coupled to the structure (108), aligning the position sensor (146) to the structure (108) comprises securing the position sensor (146) to the securing device (securing device, such as a mount, is inherent since camera may be mounted to track; Para. 0068; 0168);
providing a fiducial marker (148) affixed to the structure (108), the position sensor (146) is an imaging device (Para. 0168); and
aligning the position sensor (146) comprises capturing an image of the fiducial marker (148) using the imaging device (146) and determining the position of the imaging device based at least in part on a location of the fiducial marker (148) in the captured image (Para. 0168).
Cherubini does not expressly disclose: the position sensor is aligned to the track using a fiducial marker and position sensor data of the fiducial marker generated by the position sensor such that alignment of the position sensor results in the position sensor and the track sharing a same coordinate system; or
the aligning step includes aligning the component to the position sensor based at least partially on the sensing.
Adam teaches: aligning an imaging device (208)(Fig. 2) relative to fiducial markers (210)(Fig. 2) placed on a surface in a materials handling facility (such as location 230) so that pixels from different images correspond to the same physical position of coordinate within the view area (Col. 9, lines 28-35; Col. 10, lines 51-54; Col. 10, lines 44-50).
In other words, Adams calibrates the imaging device (208) to the marker-defined coordinate system of the surface (such as Ref. 230) in the materials handling facility (Col. 9, lines 28-31; Col. 13, lines 49-51)(Fig. 2).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have knows to similarly align a position sensor, such as detector or camera 146 to the transport line 108 using a fiducial marker (such as markers 148, 150), so that the detector/camera (146) and the transport line (108) share a common coordinate system as a routine design choice. See MPEP §2144.05(II); §2144.03.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cherubini so that the position sensor is aligned to the track using a fiducial marker, such that alignment of the position sensor results in the position sensor and the track sharing a same coordinate system, as claimed as a routine design choice.
Cherubini in view of Adam, modified as above, does not expressly disclose: aligning the component to the position sensor based at least partially on the sensing.
Cherubini would have made aligning the component to the position sensor based at least partially on the sensing, as an obvious matter of design choice.
Cherubini discloses aligning the component or module (106)(Fig. 7-8) to the track (108)(Fig. 7-8) based at least partially on the sensed position data (Para. 0165; 0173). The relative positions of the module 106 and transport line 108 are calculated using the sensed data from the camera 146 (Para. 0162).
Cherubini’s camera (146)(Fig. 7) defines the coordinate system used to the detect the misalignment between the module (106) and the transport line (108)(Para. 0164; 0168)(Fig. 7). The markers (148, 150) are detected in the camera-based frame so the system can compute how far the component or module (106) is from the target position and moves it accordingly (Para. 0165; 0173).
In other words, once the camera’s coordinate frame is the operative positional reference, bringing the module (106) into its target position means aligning the module or component 106 to the camera sensor’s (146) reference plane.
Implementing this alignment of the component or module (106) to the imaging device or camera (146) based at least partially on the sensed marker positions (148, 150)(Fig. 7) would have been a routine design choice in machine-vision alignment. See MPEP §2144.03.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherubini in view of Adam et al (US Patent No. 10,664,962). Relative to claims 18-20, Cherubini discloses:
A method of aligning a component (106)(Fig. 1) to a track (108) in a diagnostic laboratory system (Para. 0156), comprising:
aligning a position sensor (146) to the track (108) (Para. 0168; 0068);
sensing a position of the component (106)(Fig. 1) using the position sensor (146)(Para. 0162);
calculating a position of the component (106)(Fig. 1) relative to the position sensor (146) based at least in part on the sensing (Para. 0163; 0168; also using images of marker 150 of component 106, the relative position of the component 106 to camera 146 can be determined based on the imaging, the camera’s position is known, see also Para. 0162; and
aligning the component (106)(Fig. 1) to the track (108) based at least partially on the sensing (Para. 0165; 0173);
providing the fiducial marker (148) affixed to the track (108)(Fig. 7);
the position sensor (146) is an imaging device (Para. 0162); and aligning the position sensor (146) comprises capturing an image of the fiducial marker (148) using the imaging device (146)(Para. 0162; 0168), and determining the position of the imaging device (146) based at least in part on a location of the fiducial marker (148) in the captured image (Para. 0162; 0168); and
sensing a position of the component (106)(Fig. 1) comprises capturing an image of the component (106)(Fig. 1) using the imaging device (146) and determining a position of the component (106)(Fig. 1) in the captured image (Para. 0162).
Cherubini does not expressly disclose: the position sensor is aligned to the track using a fiducial marker and position sensor data of the fiducial marker generated by the position sensor such that alignment of the position sensor results in the position sensor and the track sharing a same coordinate system; or
aligning the component to the position sensor based at least partially on the sensing.
Adam teaches: aligning an imaging device (208)(Fig. 2) relative to fiducial markers (210)(Fig. 2) placed on a surface in a materials handling facility (such as location 230) so that pixels from different images correspond to the same physical position of coordinate within the view area (Col. 9, lines 28-35; Col. 10, lines 51-54; Col. 10, lines 44-50).
In other words, Adams calibrates the imaging device (208) to the marker-defined coordinate system of the surface (such as Ref. 230) in the materials handling facility (Col. 9, lines 28-31; Col. 13, lines 49-51)(Fig. 2).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have knows to similarly align a position sensor, such as detector or camera 146 to the transport line 108 using a fiducial marker (such as markers 148, 150), so that the detector/camera (146) and the transport line (108) share a common coordinate system as a routine design choice. See MPEP §2144.05(II); §2144.03.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cherubini so that the position sensor is aligned to the track using a fiducial marker, such that alignment of the position sensor results in the position sensor and the track sharing a same coordinate system, as claimed as a routine design choice.
Cherubini in view of Adam, modified as above, does not expressly disclose: aligning the component to the position sensor based at least partially on the sensing.
Cherubini would have made aligning the component to the position sensor based at least partially on the sensing, as an obvious matter of design choice.
Cherubini discloses aligning the component or module (106)(Fig. 7-8) to the track (108)(Fig. 7-8) based at least partially on the sensed position data (Para. 0165; 0173). The relative positions of the module 106 and transport line 108 are calculated using the sensed data from the camera 146 (Para. 0162).
Cherubini’s camera (146)(Fig. 7) defines the coordinate system used to the detect the misalignment between the module (106) and the transport line (108)(Para. 0164; 0168)(Fig. 7). The markers (148, 150) are detected in the camera-based frame so the system can compute how far the component or module (106) is from the target position and moves it accordingly (Para. 0165; 0173).
In other words, once the camera’s coordinate frame is the operative positional reference, bringing the module (106) into its target position means aligning the module or component 106 to the camera sensor’s (146) reference plane.
Implementing this alignment of the component or module (106) to the imaging device or camera (146) based at least partially on the sensed marker positions (148, 150)(Fig. 7) would have been a routine design choice in machine-vision alignment. See MPEP §2144.03.
Claim(s) 9-10, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherubini in view of Tesluk (US PG. Pub. 2021/0311082). Relative to claims 9-10, Cherubini discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, including: the component is movable by a robot (Ref. 164 may be x-y-z stage, which is a type of linear robot, for moving module 106, Para. 0165; 0085, alignment device moves module 106 to track 108); aligning a position sensor to the track comprise aligning a touch sensor to the track; aligning a position sensor (146) to the track (146).
Cherubini does not expressly disclose:
the position sensor is a touch sensor and sensing a position of the component comprises touching the component to the touch sensor;
the position sensor is a touch sensor and the component is movable by a robot, and sensing the position of the component comprises moving the robot to where the component touches the touch sensor;
aligning a position sensor to the track comprise aligning a touch sensor to the track;
sensing a position of the component comprises sensing a position of the component using the touch sensor;
calculating a position of the component comprises calculating a position of the component relative to the touch sensor based at least in part on the sensing; and aligning the component comprises aligning the component to the touch sensor based at least partially on the sensing.
Tesluk teaches: the position sensor is a touch sensor (Para. 0004), for the purpose of providing an automated clinical analyzer that efficiently calibrates locations of a workspace in an apparatus for biological sample preparation, preprocessing and/or diagnostic assay performed by one or more analyzers, that reduces the frequency of manual calibration due to operations and repairs (Para. 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the method of Cherubini so that the position sensor is a touch sensor described above, as taught in Tesluk, for the purpose of providing an automated clinical analyzer that calibrates locations of a workspace in an apparatus for biological sample preparation, preprocessing and/or diagnostic assay performed by one or more analyzers, that reduces the frequency of manual calibration due to operations and repairs.
Relative to claims 9-10, and 21 Cherubini in view of Tesluk does not expressly disclose: the sensing a position of the component comprises touching the component to the touch sensor, or the sensing a position of the component comprises moving the robot to where the component touches the touch sensor;
aligning a position sensor to the track comprise aligning a touch sensor to the track; sensing a position of the component comprises sensing a position of the component using the touch sensor; calculating a position of the component comprises calculating a position of the component relative to the touch sensor based at least in part on the sensing; and aligning the component comprises aligning the component to the touch sensor based at least partially on the sensing.
Cherubini in view of Tesluk teaches: sensing a position of the component comprises touching the component to the touch sensor, and the sensing a position of the component comprises moving the robot to where the component touches the touch sensor, aligning a position sensor to the track comprise aligning a touch sensor to the track; sensing a position of the component comprises sensing a position of the component using the touch sensor; calculating a position of the component comprises calculating a position of the component relative to the touch sensor based at least in part on the sensing; and aligning the component comprises aligning the component to the touch sensor based at least partially on the sensing, as an obvious matter of design choice.
Tesluk teaches using touch sensors with robots to determine a contact event (Para. 0004). Cherubini discloses using various types of sensors to detect the position of the components.
Cherubini can be modified to employ the touch sensor of Tesluk such that the module 106 is moved into contact with the touch sensor. When the module 106 touches touch sensor (such as by using the x-y-z stage to move the module 106), the touch sensor detects the contact event indicating the module 106 has reached the known position of the touch sensor. Therefore, the position of the module 106 relative to the sensor 146 is determined when the touch sensor detects the contact event.
Moreover, using contact sensing as positional feedback constitutes a predictable use of a known sensor type for alignment and calibration. See MPEP §2144.03
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cherubini in view of Tesluk so that the sensing a position of the component, such as the module, comprises touching the component to the touch sensor as a matter of design choice, since the position of the module relative to the sensor is inherently determined when the touch sensor detects the contact event, and since using contact sensing as positional feedback constitutes a predictable use of a known sensor type.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherubini in view of Silbert et al (US PG. Pub. 2022/0349910). Relative to claims 11-12, Cherubini discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose: the component is configured to aspirate a liquid from a container; or the component is configured to dispense a liquid to a container.
Silbert teaches: the component (see modules, such as aliquoting module 1060)(Fig. 1A) is configured to aspirate a liquid from a container (Para. 0036; 0062); and the component (see module, such as aliquoting module 1060) is configured to dispense a liquid to a container (see modules such as aliquoting module 1060 aspirates/dispenses a fluid from/to a receptacle; Para. 0036; 0062), for the purpose of providing a receptacle transport system and method that automates operations to increase throughput, address a shortage of medical staff, and decrease errors (Para. 0001-0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the method of Cherubini so that the component is configured to aspirate or dispense a liquid from or to a container as taught in Silbert, for the purpose of providing a receptacle transport system and method that automates operations to increase throughput, address a shortage of medical staff, and decrease errors.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YOLANDA RENEE CUMBESS whose telephone number is (571)270-5527. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/YOLANDA R CUMBESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights