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 .
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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooba (US 2020/0269448) in view of Correll et al. (US 2021/0394367).
In regard to claims 1 and 8, Ooba teach a component posture information acquiring device that acquires information of a posture of a component from a hand that holds the component arranged on a picking table and places the component at a supply position, the component posture information acquiring device comprising: a sensor that is provided in a vicinity of a component holding part of the hand the sensor measuring a distance from the sensor to the component (element 43 and paragraph 50); and a hardware processor that determines the posture of the component, wherein the hardware processor determines a region of interest to be used for determining the posture of the component based on information of an arrangement position of the sensor when the measured distance becomes a predetermined distance (paragraph 43, when the camera and workpiece satisfy a predetermined positional relationship the precision detection unit 42 determines a position and posture of the workpiece. The precision detection unit detects a degree of similarity between a template and the image), and the hardware processor determines the posture of the component based on a feature amount in the region of interest (paragraph 43, determine posture based on degree of similarity) but does not teach the sensor provided on the hand.
Correll et al. teach a sensor provided on the hand (fig. 3 elements 32 and 34) and the sensor measuring a distance from the sensor to the component (paragraph 60, Correll et al. teach using depth cameras).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of robotic manipulation.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Ooba with the camera placement of Correll et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Ooba with the camera placement of Correll et al. because the camera placement of Correll et al. would work equally as well as the placement of Ooba. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize both positions would work predictably and could be chosen based on manufacturing preferences and design choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 8 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 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.
Claims 9-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In regard to claims 2-7 and 9-14, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious “wherein the region of interest is a region in which a difference between a feature amount on a first surface of the component and a feature amount on a second surface different from the first surface is assumed to be large” in combination with the claim’s other features.
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
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 JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights