DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1 and 4-14 remain pending.
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 Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 02/18/2026.
(a) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretations set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said interpretations.
(b) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-14 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki et al. JP2019091310A (hereinafter, Ozaki), in view of Tatsuya et al. JP2016078142A (hereinafter, Tatsuya).
Regarding Claim 1, Ozaki describes an article acquisition system, comprising:
-a camera an imaging unit configured to image an article (image acquiring unit, such as a camera, Ozaki, Paragraph 0005);
-a robot an arm capable of acquiring the article (picking device, which can be an arm, Ozaki, Paragraphs 0011-0013 and Figure 1);
-a controller unit configured to determine a shape and color of the article from image data captured by the camera imaging unit (image processing unit, Ozaki, Paragraphs 00009-0013); and …
-the controller unit: determines an article to be acquired based on the shape and color of the article (determine an article to be acquired or not acquired based on the shape and color of the object, Ozaki, Paragraphs 0006 and 0008-0009),
Ozaki does not specifically disclose a display unit capable of selecting whether or not to acquire the article, wherein the display is a touch panel type, in a case where determination is made to acquire the article imaged by the imaging unit, … displays an arrangement position of the article on the display unit, and displays a screen displaying the article and being configured to receive a user input, acquires coordinates of positions on the display, the positions being traced by a user on the display to which an acquisition position of the article is input, and in a case where the acquisition position is input, approximates the positions to a straight line, determines an acquisition position based on a position of the straight line and a direction thereof, acquires coordinates on the screen of the display based on the acquisition position, converts the coordinates on the screen into an actual arrangement position, and the control unit moves the robot arm toward the actual arrangement position, and moves the robot arm in conformity to the acquisition position to acquire the article.
Tatsuya discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Tatsuya describes a display unit that is capable of displaying an object, such that a user can select or not select actions for the object to be selected (Tatsuya, Paragraphs 0007 and 0009). Moreover, Tatsuya describes the system acquiring coordinates of the position selected by the user for which the position is approximated by a straight line for the robot arm to acquire the selected object (Tatsuya, Paragraphs 0048, 0056-0060 and 0065).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Ozaki to include a display unit capable of selecting whether or not to acquire the article, wherein the display is a touch panel type, in a case where determination is made to acquire the article imaged by the imaging unit, … displays an arrangement position of the article on the display unit, and displays a screen displaying the article and being configured to receive a user input, acquires coordinates of positions on the display, the positions being traced by a user on the display to which an acquisition position of the article is input, and in a case where the acquisition position is input, approximates the positions to a straight line, determines an acquisition position based on a position of the straight line and a direction thereof, acquires coordinates on the screen of the display based on the acquisition position, converts the coordinates on the screen into an actual arrangement position, and the control unit moves the robot arm toward the actual arrangement position, and moves the robot arm in conformity to the acquisition position to acquire the article, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Tatsuya.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because using user input to select an object and using a straight-line approximation for determining the path helps a robot arm correctly and accurately travel and select the desired object (Tatsuya, Paragraph 0048)
Regarding Claim 4, Ozaki, as modified, describes the article acquisition system according claim 1, wherein the article corresponds to crops, and the controller moves the robot arm to harvest the crops in a case where the crop imaged by the camera is selected as a harvest target (system able to identify crop and have the arm select the crop based on a harvest target, Ozaki, Paragraphs 0021 and 0025-0028) or a thinning target.
Regarding Claim 5, Ozaki, as modified, describes the article acquisition system according to claim 1, wherein the controller records a position of the crops set as the harvest target or the thinning target, and the controller displays a position of at least one of the harvest target and the thinning target, and at least one of the crops set as the harvest target and the crops set as the thinning target on the display (target harvest of the crop selected based on factors, such as size, shape, and color, Ozaki, Paragraphs 0008-0009 and 0016-0021).
Regarding Claim 6, Ozaki, as modified, describes the article acquisition system according to claim 4, wherein the controller determines whether or not the crops are the harvest target or the thinning target by using at least one or both of a shape and a color of the crops imaged by the camera, and in a case where a management user of the crops is required to make a determination on the harvest target or the thinning target among the crops determined as the thinning target (target harvest of the crop selected based on factors, such as size, shape, and color, Ozaki, Paragraphs 0008-0009 and 0016), the controller displays at least one of the crops which become the harvest target and the thinning target on the display (ability to display crop information, Ozaki, Paragraphs 0016-0017).
Regarding Claim 7, Ozaki, as modified, describes the article acquisition system according claim 4, wherein the controller records harvest prediction data of the crops, and the controller updates the harvest prediction data in a case where the crops are thinned (ability to store and update target harvest data based on crop data, Ozaki, Paragraphs 0015-0018).
Regarding Claim 9, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 10, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claims 5 and 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claims.
Regarding Claim 11, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.1
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claims 5 and 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claims.
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-14 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki et al. JP2019091310A (hereinafter, Ozaki), in view of Tatsuya et al. JP2016078142A (hereinafter, Tatsuya), in further view of Faulring et al. WO2020/154515A1 (hereinafter, Faulring).
Regarding Claim 8, Ozaki, as modified, describes the article acquisition system according to claim 4.
Ozaki does not specifically disclose the system to a plurality of support columns arranged in parallel with intervals in a house capable of accommodating the crops; and at least one movement member hung on the plurality of support columns and is movable on an upper side of the crops inside the house, wherein the robot arm is movable from the movement member toward the crops.
Faulring discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Faulring describes a system that includes a plurality of support columns arranged in parallel for accommodating crops and a movement member that can be hung from the support columns to move within side the house generated around a crop (Faulring, Figure 1A).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Ozaki to include that a plurality of support columns arranged in parallel with intervals in a house capable of accommodating the crops; and at least one movement member hung on the plurality of support columns and is movable on an upper side of the crops inside the house, wherein the robot arm is movable from the movement member toward the crops, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Faulring.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because allowing picking crops via a housing such as plurality of columns allows for a stable system around the crop (Faulring, Figure 1a).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 The Examiner is interpreting “reward” to mean value assigned to a crop, such as a high reward is a high value crop, which likely should be harvested.
Prosecution Insights