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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation "the first acceptable" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be examined as “the first unacceptable”.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koike et al (US Pub 2020/0101617 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Koike discloses a mobile inspection and handling system for inspecting and removing or repositioning products on a conveyor (element 2), the system comprising: a robot system (element 2) extending from a frame (element 11), wherein the robot system comprises an end effector (element 23) adjacent to a distal end of an arm system (elements 21 and 22), wherein the robot system is programmable for use at multiple locations relative to a conveyor (see Figs. 4 and 5 engaged and unengaged).
Regarding claim 18, Koike discloses the frame comprises at least one of a wheel or caster extending from a lower frame member (elements 17).
Regarding claim 19, Koike discloses a camera system for visually inspecting multiple products and identifying a location of each unacceptable product (element 44).
Regarding claim 20, Koike discloses a location system for positioning the inspection and handling system in a specific location (paragraph 0039; positioning by the camera and sensor system).
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 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 of this title, 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 1-8, 10-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iino (US Pub 2016/0346811 A1) in view of Koike.
Regarding claim 1, Iino discloses a method of inspecting and removing or repositioning products on a moving conveyor with a mobile inspection and handling system, the method comprising the steps of: wherein the inspection and handling system comprises a robot system extending from a frame (see Fig. 1; element 80 moving in the Z axis), wherein the robot system comprises an end effector (element 81) adjacent to a distal end of an arm system, and wherein the inspection and handling system is positionable relative (see Fig. 1; elements 30 and 80) to a camera system (element 30) that is adjacent to the first location of the inspection and handling system (see Fig. 1); conveying multiple products on the conveyor until the products are adjacent to the camera system and inspection and handling system (see Fig. 2; element 10); visually inspecting each of the multiple products with the camera system and identifying a location of a first unacceptable product (see Fig. 4; step S2); relaying the location of the first unacceptable product to the robot system (see Fig. 4; step S3); moving the end effector to remove the first unacceptable product from the conveyor (see Fig. 4; step S4); depositing the first unacceptable product at a different location from the location from which it was removed (see Fig. 4; step S4); and repeating the visual inspection step, relaying location information step, moving the end effector step, and depositing the product step for each subsequent unacceptable product (see Fig. 4), but Iino does not disclose moving the inspection and handling system to a first location relative to the conveyor. Koike teaches moving the inspection and handling system to a first location relative to the conveyor (paragraph 0030) for the purpose of positioning the robot to a desired installation location (paragraph 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Iino, as taught by Koike, for the purpose of positioning the robot to a desired installation location.
Regarding claim 2, Iino discloses a step of moving the inspection and handling system to a second location after a last unacceptable product is removed from the conveyor (elements 91L and 91R).
Regarding claim 3, Iino in view of Kioke does not explicitly disclose the step of depositing the first unacceptable product at a different location from where it was removed comprises depositing the first unacceptable product at a different location on the conveyor. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to sorting items because Applicant has not disclosed that the particular placement of sorted items provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Iino in view of Kioke, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either item placement because both item placements would perform the same function of sorting for the purpose of separating acceptable and unacceptable items.
Regarding claim 4 as best understood by the Examiner, Iino discloses the step of depositing the first acceptable product at a different location from where it was removed comprises depositing the first unacceptable product at a location that is not on the conveyor (element 91L and 91R).
Regarding claim 5, Iino does not disclose the claim limitations. Kioke teaches the inspection and handling system comprises at least one of multiple casters and multiple wheels extending from a lower member of the frame (elements 17) for the purpose of positioning the robot to a desired installation location (paragraph 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Iino, as taught by Koike, for the purpose of positioning the robot to a desired installation location.
Regarding claim 6, Iino does not disclose the claim limitations. Kioke teaches the frame includes leveling members, and wherein the method further comprises a step of leveling the inspection and handling system after the step of moving the inspection and handling system to the first location (element 18) for the purpose of positioning the robot to a desired installation location (paragraph 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Iino, as taught by Koike, for the purpose of positioning the robot to a desired installation location.
Regarding claim 7, Iino discloses the end effector comprises at least one gripper member (element 81).
Regarding claim 8, Iino in view of Kioke does not explicitly disclose the at least one gripper member is removable and replaceable. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to be replaceable because Applicant has not disclosed that removability provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Iino in view of Kioke, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either replaceable gripper member because both gripper members would perform the same function of grasping items for the purpose of separating acceptable and unacceptable items.
Regarding claim 10, Iino discloses the food conveyed products comprise formed food products (see Fig. 1; element A).
Regarding claim 11, Iino in view Kioke does not explicitly disclose the formed food conveyed products comprise chicken nuggets. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to sorting items because Applicant has not disclosed that sorting specific items provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Iino, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either food item because the sorting would perform the same function of sorting for the purpose of separating acceptable and unacceptable items.
Regarding claim 12, Iino discloses prior to the step of moving the inspection and handling system to the first location, the method further comprises a step of programming at least one of the robot system and the camera system to detect unacceptable products (see Figs. 4 and 5 where robot instruction and unacceptable product analysis are carried out).
Regarding claim 13, Iino does not disclose the claim limitations. Kioke teaches the inspection and handling system is moveable with at least one of a fork lift mechanism, a pallet truck mechanism, and manual manipulation (paragraph 0030; element 19) for the purpose of positioning the robot to a desired installation location (paragraph 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Iino, as taught by Koike, for the purpose of positioning the robot to a desired installation location.
Regarding claim 14, Iino discloses a step of positioning the camera system relative to the conveyor either before or after the step of moving the inspection and handling system to the first location relative to the conveyor (element 30 is positioned relative to element 10 for inspecting items conveyed).
Regarding claim 15, Iino discloses a step of repeatedly moving the inspection and handling system to multiple locations relative to the conveyor (element 81 moving from the conveyor to elements 91 and 92 and then back to the conveyor).
Regarding claim 16, Iino does not disclose the claim limitations. Kioke teaches a step of securing the inspection and handling system relative to the conveyor after it has been moved to a first location and subsequent locations (paragraph 0030; element 18 installs the robot at a location) for the purpose of positioning the robot to a desired installation location (paragraph 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Iino, as taught by Koike, for the purpose of positioning the robot to a desired installation location.
Regarding claim 21, Iino does not disclose the claim limitations. Kioke teaches a step of securing the inspection and handling system relative to the conveyor with a male and female location system after it has been moved to a first location and subsequent locations (paragraph 0030; element 18 installs the robot at a location) for the purpose of positioning the robot to a desired installation location (paragraph 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Iino, as taught by Koike, for the purpose of positioning the robot to a desired installation location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached on 571-272-7805. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653