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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-7 are pending in this application. Claim 7 was amended by preliminary amendment.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Regarding the “manufacturing” aspect of the title, of all the claims, only claim 7 is directed to a “plate member manufacturing method”. This claim recites no manufacturing steps but only discloses a transport step. Since claim 6 is a “plate member transport method”, it appears that claim 7 should also be a transport method. For these reasons, the title, “PLATE MEMBER POSITION DETECTION DEVICE, PLATE MEMBER TRANSPORT METHOD, AND PLATE MEMBER MANUFACTURING METHOD” (emphasis added) appears to be inaccurate. One acceptable title would be, “PLATE MEMBER POSITION DETECTION DEVICE AND PLATE MEMBER TRANSPORT METHOD”. While not a ground for objection, applicant’s term “plate member” is unnecessarily verbose, as the word “member” is all but meaningless in this context. The term “plate” alone is superior. A superior title would be, “PLATE POSITION DETECTION DEVICE AND PLATE TRANSPORT METHOD”.
Claim Interpretation
We take note that applicant states in [0002] that an “adsorption mechanism” (recited in claim 6) is actually a commonplace lifting electromagnet. The usual meaning of “adsorb” (to take up liquid on a surface) has nothing to do with magnetism but applicant is of course entitled to act as their own lexicographer. It would have been preferable, however, to use the plain English terms “electromagnet” for “adsorption mechanism” and “magnetically attracted” for “adsorbed”. In the absence of the definition of [0002] the term would have been grounds for rejection and though marginally acceptable in the instant application still gives the ostensible appearance of intentional obfuscation.
Applicant recites several “units” over the course of its claims. We interpret these units as follows:
image acquisition unit: a sensor such as a camera
computing unit: a computer
position calculating unit: aspect of control software
plate member peripheral edge detecting unit: aspect of control software
plate member template information creating unit: aspect of control software
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, “information based on… dimension information on the uppermost plate member, and positional information on the image acquisition unit ” (emphasis added). We believe we understand applicant’s meaning, the dimensional information being the dimensions of the uppermost plate and the positional information being the position of the camera or image acquisition unit. However, applicant’s usage is ungrammatical and was perplexing at first glance. Edits such as “the dimensions of the uppermost plate member” and “the position of the image acquisition unit” would make the claim much more readable.
Claim 4 is similarly objected to as it recites, “information on the stacked plate members”. In this case an appropriate edit appears to be “information about”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, “A plate member manufacturing method” but the only step disclosed is a handling and transport step similar to that of claim 6, which is a “plate member transport method”. No indication of manufacturing is found in claim 7 or in parent claim 1. Claim 7 should presumably be a plate member transport method like claim 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakajima, et al., JP H07-330287 (hereinafter Nakajima).
Regarding claim 1,
Nakajima discloses:
A plate member position detection device (system of fig. 1) for detecting a position of an uppermost plate member among stacked plate members (steel slabs S1-3: fig. 1, [0013]) when the uppermost plate member is lifted by a lifting device (lifting device 1: fig. 1, [0013]),
the plate member position detection device comprising:
an image acquisition unit (camera 3: fig. 1, [0014]) configured to acquire an image of the stacked plate members including the whole uppermost plate member;
and a computing unit (computational system, [0011]) configured to detect the position of the uppermost plate member by comparing template information created in advance for the uppermost plate member with the image.Nakajima discloses the claimed template information in the form of brightness levels for steel slab surfaces in [0016]. Slab position in the form of a centroid is determined in [0019]-[0023].
Regarding claim 2,
Nakajima discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
further comprising a vertical distance detecting unit configured to detect a distance in a vertical direction from the uppermost plate member to the image acquisition unit as a vertical distance, Nakajima discloses determining distance from camera to slab in [0019]-[0020]. As this radial distance includes the determination of an angle theta between the camera axis and the slab, simple trigonometry determines the vertical distance which is inherent in the radial distance and the angle. Nakajima also discloses in [0009] calculating the height as claimed based on the diagonal camera view of [0010].
wherein the computing unit includes a plate member template information creating unit configured to create the template information based on the vertical distance, dimension information on the uppermost plate member, and positional information on the image acquisition unit.Nakajima discloses this method in [0009]-[0011]. Based on the claimed factors of vertical distance and slab dimension information calculated from the camera view, Nakajima creates profile information which we map to the claimed plate member template information.
Regarding claim 3,
Nakajima discloses the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein the computing unit includes a plate member peripheral edge detecting unit configured to detect a peripheral edge of the uppermost plate member from the image and to create plate member information, and a plate member position calculating unit configured to calculate the position of the uppermost plate member by comparing the plate member information with the template information. Nakajima discloses this method in [0009]-[0011] and [0015]-[0016]. Areas of brightness and darkness are used in a binarized image to define the shapes of the top and sides of the steel slab being analyzed in the image. These areas then determine a centroid or position of the slab in [0019]-[0024].
Regarding claim 7,
Nakajima discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
A plate member manufacturing method, comprising handling and transporting the uppermost plate member with the uppermost plate member being lifted based on the position of the uppermost plate member which position is detected by the plate member position detection device according to claim 1.Nakajima discloses the actual lifting and transport of a steel slab following its detection and position determination in [0025]-[0026].
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Aveling, Christian W, US 1,395,077 (hereinafter Aveling).
Nakajima discloses:
A plate member transport method (general method, [0012]-[0025]) for handling and transporting an uppermost plate member among stacked plate members (steel slabs S1-3: fig. 1, [0013])
the plate member transport method comprising:
acquiring, by an image acquisition unit (camera 3: fig. 1, [0014]), an image of the stacked plate members including the whole uppermost plate member;
detecting a position of the uppermost plate member by comparing template information created in advance for the uppermost plate member with the image;Nakajima discloses the claimed template information in the form of brightness levels for steel slab surfaces in [0016]. Slab position in the form of a centroid is determined in [0023].
However, Nakajima does not disclose all aspects of:
with the uppermost plate member being adsorbed and lifted by an adsorption mechanism of a lifting device,While Nakajima discloses the claimed method for handling and transporting an uppermost plate member in [0012]-[0025], it does not disclose the claimed electromagnetic lifting device (adsorption mechanism). However, Nakajima’s lifting device is merely exemplified as a tongs in [0012] and may well be an electromagnet as claimed.
and handling and transporting the uppermost plate member such that the uppermost plate member is adsorbed by the adsorption mechanism and lifted by the lifting device after the adsorption mechanism is positioned based on the detected position of the uppermost plate member. While Nakajima discloses the claimed handling and transport step in [0025], it does not use an electromagnet (adsorption mechanism) to do so.
Aveling an invention in the field of hoisting equipment, teaches:
with the uppermost plate member being adsorbed and lifted by an adsorption mechanism of a lifting device,
and handling and transporting the uppermost plate member such that the uppermost plate member is adsorbed by the adsorption mechanism and lifted by the lifting device after the adsorption mechanism is positioned based on the detected position of the uppermost plate member.Aveling teaches the use of an electromagnet (adsorption mechanism) to lift objects in P1/L85-92.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of Nakajima for with the uppermost plate member being adsorbed and lifted by an adsorption mechanism of a lifting device, and handling and transporting the uppermost plate member such that the uppermost plate member is adsorbed by the adsorption mechanism and lifted by the lifting device after the adsorption mechanism is positioned based on the detected position of the uppermost plate member, as taught by Aveling, because as suggested by Aveling’s publication date of 1921 and its casual mention of the use of an electromagnetic lifting device in P1/L85-92, the use of such devices has been commonplace and well known for over 100 years.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding dependent claim 4, while much prior art discloses the ability to determine the positions of stacked platelike objects through image recognition, and while much art employs neural network and similar methods that identify objects by a degree of matching with “template” information, the claimed method that specifically determines the position of an uppermost plate by means of identifying the plate with the highest rate of matching with template information was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Degree of matching is usually employed to identify an item or a type of an item rather than to determine its position. Moreover, in the many cases (such as semiconductor substrate position determination) where all plates in a stack are considered individually, there would be no reason for the uppermost plate to have a higher degree of matching; this would apply only to abutting stacks such as steel plates or pallets where the uppermost plate has special significance. In particular, primary reference Nakajima determines all its stacked plates’ positions, not just that of the uppermost plate, and this determination is made without consideration for degree of matching. Many other references found are likewise capable of determining all stacked plate positions regardless of degree of matching with template information. Dependent claim 5 inherits the potential allowability of claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4,271,755 and US 4,874,282 are typical of many examples of prior art that determine the position of an uppermost plate in a stack (but not, per applicant’s claim 4, according to a highest degree of matching). US 2021/0103226 teaches the use of pattern matching to determine a plurality of plate positions, but does not distinguish an uppermost plate by degree of matching.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights