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 Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application filed 09/19/2024.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the datum" in “wherein said processor is programmed to correlate the datum with objects defined on the object.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the term “objects defined on the object”. It is unclear what an object “defined on” the object is and how it relates to the object recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6-10, 12-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US9636824B2)
Regarding Claim 1, Kobayashi teaches:
A system (Kobayashi, [Col 1 Line 23]; “a transfer system”) for determining geometric disposition of an object within a coordinate system, comprising (Kobayashi, [Col 1 Line 23];” there is provided a transfer system comprising … an image capturing unit for capturing an image of the workpiece that reflects a position of the workpiece in the first station … and a deviation calculator that calculates a deviation of the position of the workpiece in the first station relative to the intended placement position."):
a processor (Kobayashi, [Col 6 Line 43]; “"the deviation calculator”);
a sensor array (Kobayashi, [Col 4 Line 50]; “CCD camera”) including a plurality of sensors (Kobayashi, [Col 6 Line 36]; “two cameras”) oriented to scan a first edge(Kobayashi, [Col 6 Line 60]; “the first edge 891 of the workpiece 89") and a second edge(Kobayashi, [Col 7 Line 12]; “the second edge 892 of the workpiece 89”) of an object (Kobayashi, [Col 6 Line 12]; “the light source 51 emits light toward the first edge 861, the second edge 862 and the first corner 866, whereas the other light emits light toward the first edge 861, the third edge 863 and the second corner 867”) and a second corner image Im2 (see FIG. 16)”)
thereby identifying a disposition of the first edge (Kobayashi, [Col 6, Line 58]; "The first line signal IL11 represents the information on a first straight line L1 (see FIG. 15) that extends along the first edge 891 of the workpiece 89”) and the second edge (Kobayashi, [Col 7, Line 10]; "The second line signal IL12 represents the information on a second straight line L2 (see FIG. 15) that extends along the second edge 892 of the workpiece 89") within a coordinate system (Kobayashi, [Col 7, Line 28]; "the first corner position signal Ic1 corresponds to the coordinates of the first corner 866 in the world coordinate system. The world coordinates of the first corner 866 may be obtained by calculating the local coordinates of the first corner 866 of the first corner image Im1 and then converting the local coordinates into those in the world coordinate system");
said sensor array being electronically connected to said processor (Kobayashi, [Col 6, Line 38]; "The image capturing unit 61 outputs a first image signal SIm1 corresponding to the first corner image Im1 and a second image signal SIm2 corresponding to the second corner image Im2 for feeding to the deviation calculator 62") for signaling the identified disposition of the first edge (Kobayashi, [Col 6, Line 63]; "The first edge determiner 621A sends the obtained first line signal IL11 to the first corner position calculator 621C") and the second edge of the object (Kobayashi, [Col 7, Line 16]; "The second edge determiner 621B sends the obtained second line signal IL12 to the first corner position calculator 621C"); and
said processor being programmed to calculate a location of an intersecting point of the first edge and the second edge;
(Koyabashi, [Col 7 Line 25];”the first corner position calculator 621C obtains a first corner position signal Ic1 by calculating the point of intersection of the first straight line L1 and the second straight line L2.")
and said processor calculating disposition of the object within the coordinate system from the calculated location of the of the intersecting point.
(Kobayashi, [Col 8 Lines 24]; “The computation unit 625 calculates a deviation ΔT of the workpiece 89 based on the first corner position signal Ic1, the second corner position signal Ic2 and the intended placement position information Ip1. The deviation ΔT refers to a positional or postural deviation of the workpiece 89 … as well as an angular deviation of the workpiece 89 that may result from rotation thereof about a vertical axis”).
Examiner Note: Claim 1's intersecting point is Kobayashi's corner position signal Ic1/Ic2, calculated as the point of intersection of the two edges (Col 7 Lines 25-28). The computation unit 625 then uses Ic1/Ic2 to compute deviation ΔT, the workpiece's positional, postural, and angular position in the world coordinate system, which reads on the object's "disposition within the coordinate system" determined from the calculated intersecting point.
Regarding Claim 2, Koyabashi teaches:
said sensor array includes a first arrangement of sensors located proximate the first edge of the object and a second arrangement of sensors located proximate the second edge of the object.
(Kobayashi, [Col 6 Lines 35]; “the image capturing unit 61 has two cameras, one of which captures a first corner image Im1 and the other of which captures a second corner image Im2”).
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi teaches:
wherein said sensors comprise at least one of a distance sensor, a proximity sensor, and a camera sensor (Kobayashi, [Col 4 Line 51]; “The image capturing unit 61, which is illustrated in FIGS. 1-3, may be a CCD camera for example”).
Examiner Note: Claim 3 requires only one of the recited sensor types, as it is presented in the alternative ("at least one of"). Kobayashi's CCD camera is a camera sensor and therefore satisfies the claim.
Regarding Claim 6, Kobayashi teaches:
wherein said sensor array includes a camera sensor disposed above the object (Kobayashi, [Col 6 Line 6]; “the image capturing unit 61 and the light source 51 are located above and below the holder 15 (and the workpiece 89 supported thereon)”) for imaging an area of interest on the object(Kobayashi, [Col 6 Lines 18-22]; “the image capturing unit 61 receives the light emitted from the light source 51 and reflected by the three edges (the first edge 861, the second edge 862, the third edge 863) of the workpiece 89”).
Examiner note: Claim 6 mentions a camera positioned above the object that images an area of interest on the object. Kobayashi's image capturing unit 61 is located above the holder that supports the workpiece, which maps to the camera disposed above the object. The same unit 61 receives light reflected from the edges of the workpiece, which is the imaging of an area of interest on the object.
Regarding Claim 7, Kobayashi teaches:
wherein said camera sensor identifies disposition of the first edge (Kobayashi, [Col 6 Line 58]; “The first line signal IL11 represents the information on a first straight line L1 (see FIG. 15) that extends along the first edge 891 of the workpiece 89”) and the second edge of the object (Kobayashi, [Col 7 Line 10]; “The second line signal IL12 represents the information on a second straight line L2 (see FIG. 15) that extends along the second edge 892 of the workpiece 89”).
Regarding Claim 8, Kobayashi teaches,
wherein said sensor array defines the coordinate system and the object is located within the coordinate system defined by the sensor array (Kobayashi, [Col 7 Line 30]; “The world coordinates of the first corner 866 may be obtained by calculating the local coordinates of the first corner 866 of the first corner image Im1 and then converting the local coordinates into those in the world coordinate system”).
Regarding Claim 9, Kobayashi teaches:
wherein said processor is programmed to correlate the detected location of the intersecting point of the first edge and the second edge (Kobayashi, [Col 7 Line 25]; “the first corner position calculator 621C obtains a first corner position signal Ic1 by calculating the point of intersection of the first straight line L1 and the second straight line L2”) to a datum located within the coordinate system (Kobayashi, [Col 7 Line 28]; “the first corner position signal Ic1 corresponds to the coordinates of the first corner 866 in the world coordinate system”).
Examiner note: Claim 9 requires the processor to relate the detected intersecting point of the two edges to a datum within the coordinate system. Kobayashi calculates the intersecting point of the first and second edges as the first corner position signal Ic1, found from the point of intersection of lines L1 and L2. Kobayashi then ties Ic1 to the coordinates of the first corner in the world coordinate system, which is the datum within the coordinate system.
Regarding Claim 10, Kobayashi teaches:
wherein said processor is programmed to correlate the datum with objects defined on the object (Kobayashi, [Col 8 Line 24]; “The computation unit 625 calculates a deviation ΔT of the workpiece 89 based on the first corner position signal Ic1, the second corner position signal Ic2 and the intended placement position information Ip1”).
Examiner note: Claim 10 requires the processor to relate the datum to objects defined on the object. Kobayashi's computation unit 625 uses the first corner position signal Ic1 and second corner position signal Ic2, which are the corner datums, together with the intended placement position information Ip1 to calculate the deviation ΔT of the workpiece. Kobayashi relates the corner datums to the intended placement position of the workpiece, which is what claim 10 mentions.
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi teaches:
A method of identifying a disposition of an object within a coordinate system, comprising the steps of: providing a sensor array (Kobayashi, [Col 4 Line 49]; “The image capturing unit 61, which is illustrated in FIGS. 1-3, may be a CCD camera for example”)
and a processor for processing data received from the sensor array (Kobayashi, [Col 6 Line 43]; “the deviation calculator 62 includes a first corner determiner 621, a second corner determiner 622 and a computation unit 625”);
establishing a coordinate system defined by the sensor array (Kobayashi, [Col 7 Line 30]; “The world coordinates of the first corner 866 may be obtained by calculating the local coordinates of the first corner 866 of the first corner image Im1 and then converting the local coordinates into those in the world coordinate system”);
placing the object within the coordinate system defined by the sensor array (Kobayashi, [Col 6 Line 6]; “the image capturing unit 61 and the light source 51 are located above and below the holder 15 (and the workpiece 89 supported thereon)”);
said sensor array detecting a plurality of constructing points on an edge of the object (Kobayashi, [Col 6 Line 58]; “The first line signal IL11 represents the information on a first straight line L1 (see FIG. 15) that extends along the first edge 891 of the workpiece 89”);
said processor identifying a datum of the object by extrapolating a line through the constructing points to said datum (Kobayashi, [Col 7 Line 25]; “the first corner position calculator 621C obtains a first corner position signal Ic1 by calculating the point of intersection of the first straight line L1 and the second straight line L2”);
and said processor determining a disposition of the object within the coordinate system from identified location of said constructing points and said datum (Kobayashi, [Col 8 Line 24]; “The computation unit 625 calculates a deviation ΔT of the workpiece 89 based on the first corner position signal Ic1, the second corner position signal Ic2 and the intended placement position information Ip1”).
Regarding Claim 13, Kobayashi teaches:
wherein said step of said sensor array detecting a plurality of constructing points on an edge of the object is further defined by said sensor array detecting constructing points on a first edge (Kobayashi, [Col 6 Line 59]; “a first straight line L1 (see FIG. 15) that extends along the first edge 891 of the workpiece 89”) and a second edge of the object (Kobayashi, [Col 7 Line 11]; “a second straight line L2 (see FIG. 15) that extends along the second edge 892 of the workpiece 89”).
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi teaches:
wherein said step of extrapolating a line through the constructing points is further defined by extrapolating a line through constructing points detected on said first edge and said second edge and identifying said datum by an intersecting point of the lines (Kobayashi, [Col 7 Line 25]; “the first corner position calculator 621C obtains a first corner position signal Ic1 by calculating the point of intersection of the first straight line L1 and the second straight line L2”).
Regarding claim 17, Kobayashi teaches:
wherein said sensor array comprises a camera (Kobayashi, [Col 4 Line 49]; “The image capturing unit 61, which is illustrated in FIGS. 1-3, may be a CCD camera for example”) and said camera detects the datum from an image of an edge a first edge and a second edge of the object (Kobayashi, [Col 7 Line 25]; “the first corner position calculator 621C obtains a first corner position signal Ic1 by calculating the point of intersection of the first straight line L1 and the second straight line L2”).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5, 11, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 9636824B2) in view of Utsumi (US 5160977A).
Regarding Claim 4, Kobayashi fails to teach:
wherein said first arrangement of sensors include a first proximal sensor and a first distal sensor each identifying a constructing point on said first edge.
Utsumi teaches:
wherein said first arrangement of sensors include a first proximal sensor and a first distal sensor (Utsumi, [Col 10 Line 7]; "the detection heads 35 of two dimensional movement detection devices 24 and 25 come to be in contact with a straight edge on the lower surface of workpiece 1i") each identifying a constructing point on said first edge (Utsumi, [Col 10 Line 9]; "in contact with a straight edge on the lower surface of workpiece 1i at two points P1, P2").
Examiner note: Utsumi's two movement detection devices 24 and 25 are the first proximal and first distal sensors, and each contacts the same lower-surface edge of the workpiece at a separate point (P1, P2), reading on the two sensors each identifying a constructing point on the first edge.
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kobayashi with Utsumi. The motivation for the combination is to identify two constructing points along an edge by direct contact for accurate position detection of the object (Utsumi, [Col 10 Line 7]; "the detection heads 35 of two dimensional movement detection devices 24 and 25 come to be in contact with a straight edge on the lower surface of workpiece 1i at two points P1, P2").
Regarding Claim 5, Koyabashi fails to teach:
wherein said second arrangement of sensors include a second proximal sensor and a second proximal sensor each identifying a constructing point on said second edge.
(Utsumi, [Col 10 Line 11]; “the detection head 35 of two dimensional movement detection device 26 come to be in contact with a straight edge on the front surface of workpiece 1i at point P3”)
Examiner note: Claim 5 mentions two sensors on the second edge, each detecting a point on that edge. Utsumi teaches device 26 in contact with the second edge of the workpiece at point P3. Utsumi further teaches two sensors on the first edge, devices 24 and 25, detecting points P1 and P2. It would have been obvious to provide the second edge with two sensors in the same manner as the first edge, such that two points are detected on the second edge as claimed.
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kobayashi with Utsumi. The motivation for the combination is to identify a constructing point on the second edge by direct contact, and to provide the second edge with two sensors in the same manner as the first edge, for accurate position detection of the object (Utsumi, [Col 10 Line 7]; "the detection heads 35 of two dimensional movement detection devices 24 and 25 come to be in contact with a straight edge on the lower surface of workpiece 1i at two points P1, P2").
Regarding Claim 11, Kobayashi fails to teach:
wherein said sensor array detects defined and dynamic movement of the object in the coordinates system from changes in disposition of the first edge and the second edge.
Utsumi teaches:
wherein said sensor array detects defined and dynamic movement of the object (Utsumi, [Col 8 Line 27]; “a two dimensional movement detection device 24 is shown, by which means two dimensional movement of workpiece 1i can be detected”) in the coordinates system from changes in disposition of the first edge and the second edge (Utsumi, [Col 8 Line 34]; “change in the Y and Z coordinates of workpiece 1i in the detection plane described by X=X1 is detected relative to fixed coordinate system 2”).
Examiner note: Claim 11 discloses the sensor array to detect movement of the object in the coordinate system from changes in the first and second edges. Utsumi's movement detection device 24 detects two-dimensional movement of the workpiece and detects the change in the Y and Z coordinates of the workpiece relative to the fixed coordinate system.
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kobayashi with Utsumi. The motivation for the combination is to detect movement of the object relative to the coordinate system (Utsumi, [Col 8 Line 28]; “two-dimensional movement of workpiece 1i can be detected”).
Regarding Claim 15, Kobayashi fails to teach:
wherein said sensor array comprises a first distance sensor and a second distance sensor disposed in a parallel orientation along a first axes of the coordinate system and said first sensor detects a first distance to a first constructing point and said second sensor detect a second distance to a second constructing point.
Utsumi teaches
wherein said sensor array comprises a first distance sensor and a second distance sensor (Utsumi, [Col 8 Lines 54]; “movement of piston rod 28a is detected through the operation of linear potentiometer 24a”) disposed in a parallel orientation along a first axes of the coordinate system (Utsumi, [Col 9 Line 9]; “the two reference lines of frame 27 of two dimensional movement detection device 24 and the two reference lines of frame 27 of two dimensional movement detection device 25 all are parallel to the Y-Z plane relative to fixed coordinate system 2”) and said first sensor detects a first distance to a first constructing point and said second sensor detect a second distance to a second constructing point (Utsumi, [Col 10 Line 7];“the detection heads 35 of two dimensional movement detection devices 24 and 25 come to be in contact with a straight edge on the lower surface of workpiece 1i at two points P1, P2”).
Examiner note: Claim 15 requires two distance sensors set parallel along an axis, each detecting a distance to its own point. Utsumi's devices 24 and 25 use linear potentiometers to measure the displacement, or distance, of each detection head. Their reference frames are parallel to the Y-Z plane of the fixed coordinate system, which is the parallel orientation along an axis. Each device contacts the lower-surface edge at its own point, device 24 at P1 and device 25 at P2, so each sensor detects a distance to its own constructing point.
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kobayashi with Utsumi. The motivation for the combination is to measure distances to a plurality of constructing points using parallel distance sensors (Utsumi, [Col 8 Line 54]; “movement of piston rod 28a is detected through the operation of linear potentiometer 24a”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kobayashi and Utsumi teaches:
further including a step of identifying motion of the object being inspected (Utsumi, [Col 8 Line 27]; “a two dimensional movement detection device 24 is shown, by which means two dimensional movement of workpiece 1i can be detected”) from said first sensor and said second sensor detecting changes in detected distance to the first and the second constructing points (Utsumi, [Col 8 Line 34]; “change in the Y and Z coordinates of workpiece 1i in the detection plane described by X=X1 is detected relative to fixed coordinate system 2”).
Examiner note: Claim 16 discloses identifying motion of the object from the two sensors detecting changes in distance to their points. Utsumi's device 24 detects two-dimensional movement of the workpiece and detects the change in the Y and Z coordinates of the workpiece relative to the fixed coordinate system, which is the change in distance to the points detected by the sensors.
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kobayashi with Utsumi. The motivation for the combination is to identify motion of the object from changes in the detected distances (Utsumi, [Col 8 Line 28]; “two-dimensional movement of workpiece 1i can be detected”).
Regarding claim 20, Kobayashi fails to teach:
wherein said step of identifying a coordinate system is further defined by identifying a three dimensional coordinate system.
Utsumi teaches:
wherein said step of identifying a coordinate system is further defined by identifying a three dimensional coordinate system. (Utsumi, [Col 10 Line 43]; “coordinate data Pi(xi, yi, zi)i=1,2,3 are calculated which are the three dimensional coordinates of target points P1, P2 and P3 with respect to fixed coordinate system 2”).
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kobayashi with Utsumi. The motivation for the combination is to determine the object's disposition in three dimensions (Utsumi, [Col 10 Line 42]; “the three dimensional coordinates of target points P1, P2 and P3 with respect to fixed coordinate system 2”).
Claim 18 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 9636824B2) in view of Murashita (US 8644555B2).
Regarding claim 18, Kobayashi fails to teach:
further a step of said sensor array identifying pixels from and image of the object.
Murashita teaches:
further a step of said sensor array identifying pixels from and image of the object (Murashita, [Col 6 Line 14]; “The difference image is generated by calculating differences in pixel values at the corresponding positions between two images”).
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kobayashi with Murashita. The motivation for the combination is to identify the pixels of the captured image of the object for image processing (Murashita, [Col 6 Line 21]; “a region having a difference in pixel values greater than a specified threshold is assigned ‘1: movement region’”).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kobayashi and Murashita teaches:
wherein said processor identify change of pixels between sequential images of the object (Murashita, [Col 6 Line 12]; “the difference calculation unit 4 generates a difference image between the converted first image and the converted second image. The difference image is generated by calculating differences in pixel values at the corresponding positions between two images”) thereby calculating movement of the object (Murashita, [Col 6 Line 26]; “The decision unit 5 detects movements of an object based on the movement region extracted by the difference calculation unit 4”).
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kobayashi with Murashita. The motivation for the combination is to calculate movement of the object from the change of pixels between sequential images (Murashita, [Col 16 Line 52]; “it is possible to detect an object movement by image processing such as a filter calculation or the like, which requires a smaller number of calculations”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIVANGI SARKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30-5:00.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/SHIVANGI SARKAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/EMILY C TERRELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights