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(a) 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 11-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takagawa (US 2018/0057261 A1).
Regarding claims 11, and 18, Takagawa discloses a typical conveyor system/method of transporting an article to a target travel position, comprising: an article transport vehicle (3), which is shown in Fig. 2 and illustrated in paragraph 0019, has a camera (73) configured to capture images of the markers (20) (see paragraph 0025). The camera (73) is coupled to an image processor (71), wherein the image processor (71) recognizes information about an absolute position P indicated by a marker (20), and detects absolute coordinates Q of the article transport vehicle (3). Takagawa further disclose that the system computes camera’s absolute position, which is described by x, y, and z coordinates, based on the calculation of the difference between where the markers (20) should be and where they appear to be relative to the camera (73) (see paragraphs 0025-0027).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conveyor system as taught by Takagawa to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of accurately determining the real-time positioning for the article transport vehicle in space by using camera-based marker detection, and providing error correction in dynamic environments through such a positioning.
Regarding claim 12, Takagawa discloses that the camera (73) is arranged to capture images of the markers (20) which is a two-dimensional barcode (see paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 13, Takagawa discloses that the markers (20) is captured by the camera (73) while the transport vehicle (3) travels along the track K (see Fig. 1; paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 14, Takagawa discloses the coordinate position Q of the transport vehicle (3) is determined as a function of absolute positions P belongs to a specific area (see Fig. 4; paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 15, Takagawa discloses that the position detector (7), which includes the camera (73) and the image processor (71), is configured to calculate the relationship between an absolute position indicated by any marker (20) and the position of the camera (73) (see paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 16, Takagawa discloses that the rotation position of the article transport vehicle (3) is determined as a function of the markers (20) (see at least paragraph 0027).
Regarding claims 19, and 20, Takagawa discloses that the transport vehicle (3) is configured as a rail-bound transport apparatus (see at least paragraph 0017-0019).
Allowable Subject Matter
As discussed herein, Takagawa describes a technique for tracking a camera’s movement within a 3D space relative to fixed objects. However, Takagawa is not disclosing or even suggesting the features of “at least one variable characterizing the marking is captured by the optical capture device, which variable is transferred by a second electronic computing device separately from the electronic computing device, by OPC unified architecture to the electronic computing device.”
Claim 17 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16, and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because Takagawa still discloses and suggests the limitations of the claims.
The transport vehicle (3)’s position detector (7) utilizes the on-board camera (73) to capture images of environmental markers (20), with the image processor (71) detecting the absolute coordinates of the transport vehicle by identifying information encoded on multiple visible markers. In Takagawa, the system assumes the markers are fixed relative to the rails, making the vertical (Z) and lateral (Y) coordinates of the vehicle relatively stable. However, these positional coordinates may vary based on the environment factors such as rail bending, and vibration. Based on the results of image recognition, the system uses the image processor (71) detects the markers to correct the Y-coordinate and the Z-coordinate and calculates the true dimensional position of the transport vehicle (3) in space. Therefore, Takagawa discloses and suggests the limitations of “ascertaining a multidimensional position of the transport vehicle in the space with an electronic computing device, as a function of the captured marking.”
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ramya P Burgess, can be reached on (571) 272-6011.
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).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights