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
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-65 are currently pending and are addressed below. Claims 26-65 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 26-65 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/17/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“calculation unit configured to generate...”, and
“output unit that is configured to output...” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tateno et al. (US 2013/0011018).
Regarding claim 1:
Tateno teaches a control apparatus that generates a control signal for controlling a robot arm to which a process apparatus that performs a process on an object, a first imaging apparatus that outputs first image data, and a second imaging apparatus that outputs second image data are mounted (See at least Fig. 2b), wherein
the robot arm is controlled by the control signal to move the process apparatus and the first and imaging apparatuses (see at least ¶0069),
the control apparatus comprises:
a calculation unit that is configured to generate the control signal (see at least ¶0070); and
an output unit that is configured to output the control signal generated by the calculation unit (see at least ¶0070),
the calculation unit is configured to:
generate first information indicating a position and a pose of the object by using the first image data generated by the first imaging apparatus imaging the object (see at least ¶0032, ¶0055);
generate second information indicating a position and a pose of the object by using three-dimensional position data, which is generated from the second image data generated by the second imaging apparatus imaging the object and which indicates a three-dimensional position of each of a plurality of points of the object, and three-dimensional model data of the object having a position and a pose that are determined based on the first information (see at least ¶0031, ¶0034, ¶0060-0064); and
generate the control signal based on the second information (see at least ¶0059, ¶0069-0070).
Regarding claim 8:
Tateno further teaches wherein the output unit is configured to output the control signal, which is generated based on the second information by the calculation unit, in a first cycle (the Examiner notes that, absent further limitation defining what the “first cycle” constitutes, any outputting of the control signal is met by the teachings of Tateno as in claim 1 above).
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 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateno et al. (US 2013/0011018) in view of Taamazyan et al. (US 2022/0405506).
Regarding claim 2:
Tateno teaches the limitations as in claim 1.
Tateno does not explicitly teach the first and second sensors utilizing different coordinate systems.
Taamazyan teaches a system and method for vision guidance of a robot end effector, including wherein the first information indicates the position and the pose of the object in a first coordinate system, the determined position and pose of a three-dimensional model indicated by the three-dimensional model data are a position and a pose in a second coordinate system that is different from the first coordinate system, and the second information indicates the position and the pose of the object in the second coordinate system (see at least ¶0101-0110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the robotic vision control system and method as taught by Tateno by utilizing a first and second coordinate system for the two sensors as taught by Taamazyan in order to properly identify a pose of the target object based on a known relative location of the sensors, compensating for a particular offset/location of the sensors.
Regarding claims 3-6:
The combination of Tateno and Taamazyan teaches the limitations as in claim 2 above, including wherein it is known to utilize transforms to convert between different camera/sensor coordinate systems, thereby rendering the limitations of claims 3-6 obvious as a matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, since utilizing one or another coordinate system for determining a pose are known equivalents.
Regarding claim 7:
Taamazyan further teaches wherein a time at which the first imaging apparatus images the object to generate the first image data and a time at which the second imaging apparatus images the object to generate the second image data are the same time (see at least ¶0152).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateno as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kitajima (US 2017/017970).
Regarding claim 20-24:
Tateno teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above.
Tateno is silent as to deciding a target object.
Kitajima teaches a system and method of identifying a target object based on a first image, by comparing the first image to a two-dimensional model and determining a degree of similarity is above a threshold by detecting an edge of the first image and determining a degree of similarity between the detected edge and the model (see at least ¶0004-0009, ¶0015, ¶0054-0067, ¶0105, ¶0124-0125).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robotic control apparatus as taught by Tateno with the target object identification technique as taught by Kitajima in order to identify an object in the environment as a target object, to ensure the appropriate object is processed.
Regarding claim 25:
Kitajima further teaches wherein the calculation unit is configured to: perform, as the object detection processing, a matching processing using two-dimensional model data, which indicates a two-dimensional model of the object, and the first image data; determine, based on a second degree of similarity, which is calculated by the matching processing, between the two-dimensional model of the object and the first image indicated by the first image data, whether to decide the object as the target object; determine to decide the object as the target object in a case where the first and second degrees of similarity are higher than a predetermined first threshold value; and determine not to decide the object as the target object in a case where at least one of the first and second degrees of similarity is lower than the predetermined first threshold value (multiple scans, extractions, threshold comparisons, broadly interpreted meet the claim limitations, see at least abstract, ¶0015, ¶0080-0085).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights