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
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 1-8, 12-14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (USP 11,905,115 B2) in view of Culp et al (USP 8,030,588 B2), Casanelles et al (US Pub 2012/0209415 A1) and Takagi et al (US Pub 2024/0116711 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses a method comprising: removing, by a robotic arm mounted to a robot base (elements 212 and 214), an item from a mobile shelf rack (element 202 and col. 2, lines 47-51); maneuvering, by the robotic arm, the item such that the object is placed in an inspection field of a plurality of cameras (see Fig. 2A and elements 222, 224, 226, and 228); inspecting the object in the inspection field using the plurality of cameras (col. 25, lines 35-39); placing, by the robotic arm, the item in a first location in response to the inspecting determining that the object is acceptable (col. 22, lines 36-43), but Sun does not disclose the item being moved as a tray and placing, by the robotic arm, the tray in a second location in response to the inspecting determining that the object is not acceptable, and a mobile shelf rack being removably attached to the robot base.
Culp teaches tray holding an object (see col. 6, lines16-26 and element 302 holding element 118) for the purpose of packaging and distribution of manufactured items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sun, as taught by Culp, for the purpose of packaging and distribution of manufactured items.
Casanelles teaches the item being moved as a tray and placing, by the robotic arm, the tray in a second location in response to the inspecting determining that the object is not acceptable (paragraph 0034 where items with defects are sent to a reject station) for the purpose of separating defective parts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sun, as taught by Casanelles, for the purpose of separating defective parts.
Takagi teaches shelf rack being attached to the robot base (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0018 where a robot is attached to a shelf for assisting in sorting items) for the purpose of transporting designated items into and out boxes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sun, as taught by Takagi, for the purpose of transporting designated items into and out boxes (paragraph 0033). Furthermore, while Takagi does not teach the shelf rack being removably attached to the robot base, making the robot base and the shelf rack being separable is an obvious modification to take items apart for maintenance and replacement of broken parts (see MPEP 2144(V)(C)).
Regarding claim 2, Sun discloses the object is inspected to check one or more of object specifications (col. 26, lines 31-52 where information and identifiers are detected), tolerances, or blemishes.
Regarding claim 3, Sun discloses gripping, by a gripper of the robotic arm (col. 9, lines 50-60), the tray.
Regarding claim 4, Sun discloses the inspecting comprises capturing images of the object in the inspection field using five cameras arranged so that their fields of view form a contiguous inspection field (see Fig. 2A; elements 210, 222, 224, 226, and 228).
Regarding claim 5, Sun discloses the inspecting comprises capturing a top view of the object located in the inspection field using one of the plurality of cameras located above the inspection field (see Fig. 2A; element 210).
Regarding claim 6, Sun discloses the inspecting comprises capturing side views of the object located in the inspection field using four of the plurality of cameras located to face the sides of the object (see Fig. 2A; elements 222, 224, 226, and 228).
Regarding claim 7, Sun discloses the placing the tray in the first location comprises placing the tray in a mobile shelf rack for holding trays holding acceptable objects (see Fig. 2A; elements 218 and 220).
Regarding claim 8, Sun does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Casanelles teaches the placing the tray in the second location comprises placing the tray in a mobile shelf rack for holding trays holding unacceptable objects (paragraph 0052) separating defective parts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sun, as taught by Casanelles, for the purpose of separating defective parts.
Regarding claim 12, Sun discloses an automatic inspection system comprising: a robot base (element 214), a robotic arm mounted to the robot base (see Fig. 2A; elements 212 and 214) and configured to grip and maneuver an item (element 212); a plurality of cameras (see Fig. 2A and elements 222, 224, 226, and 228); an incoming mobile shelf rack configured to hold a plurality of items (element 202 and col. 2, lines 47-51); a controller configured to control the automated inspection system to perform operations comprising (element 230): removing from the incoming mobile shelf rack, by the robotic arm, a first item (col. 2, lines 47-51); maneuvering the first item such that an object on the first item is in an inspection field of the plurality of cameras (see Fig. 2A; element 236); inspecting the object in the inspection field (col. 25, lines 35-39); placing, by the robotic arm, the first item in a first location in response to the inspecting determining that the object is acceptable (col. 22, lines 36-43), but Sun does not disclose the item being moved as a tray and placing, by the robotic arm, the first item in a second location in response to the inspecting determining that the object is not acceptable and a mobile shelf rack being removably attached to the robot base.
Culp teaches tray holding an object (see col. 6, lines 16-26 and element 302 holding element 118) for the purpose of packaging and distribution of manufactured items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sun, as taught by Culp, for the purpose of packaging and distribution of manufactured items.
Casanelles teaches the item being moved as a tray and placing, by the robotic arm, the tray in a second location in response to the inspecting determining that the object is not acceptable (paragraph 0034 where items with defects are sent to a reject station) for the purpose of separating defective parts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sun, as taught by Casanelles, for the purpose of separating defective parts.
Takagi teaches shelf rack being attached to the robot base (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0018 where a robot is attached to a shelf for assisting in sorting items) for the purpose of transporting designated items into and out boxes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sun, as taught by Takagi, for the purpose of transporting designated items into and out boxes (paragraph 0033). Furthermore, while Takagi does not teach the shelf rack being removably attached to the robot base, making the robot base and the shelf rack being separable is an obvious modification to take items apart for maintenance and replacement of broken parts (see MPEP 2144(V)(C)).
Regarding claim 13, Sun discloses a passed inspection mobile shelf rack for holding a plurality of trays holding objects that have passed inspection, wherein the first location is the passed inspection mobile shelf rack (see Fig. 2A; elements 218 and 220).
Regarding claim 14, Sun does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Casanelles teaches failed inspection shelves for holding a plurality of trays holding objects that have failed inspection, wherein the second location is the failed inspection shelves (paragraph 0052) separating defective parts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sun, as taught by Casanelles, for the purpose of separating defective parts.
Regarding claim 17, Sun discloses the plurality of cameras is arranged so that their fields of view form a contiguous inspection field (see Fig. 2A; elements 210, 222, 224, 226, and 228).
Regarding claim 19, Sun discloses the robotic arm has a gripper configured to grip the first tray (col. 9, lines 50-60).
Claims 9, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun/Culp/Casanelles/Takagi and Hegde et al (US Pub 2023/0321694 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Sun does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Hegde teaches the inspecting the object comprises analyzing the object using artificial intelligence (paragraph 0365) for the purpose of detecting items that require special handling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sun, as taught by Hegde, for the purpose of detecting items that require special handling.
Regarding claim 10, Sun does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Hegde teaches the artificial intelligence analyzes the object based on images captured by the plurality of cameras (paragraph 0365) for the purpose of detecting items that require special handling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sun, as taught by Hegde, for the purpose of detecting items that require special handling.
Regarding claim 18, Sun does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Hegde teaches the controller is configured to inspect the object using artificial intelligence (paragraph 0365) for the purpose of detecting items that require special handling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sun, as taught by Hegde, for the purpose of detecting items that require special handling.
Claims 11, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun/Culp/Casanelles/Takagi and Schlagel et al (USP 5,829,222).
Regarding claim 11, Sun does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Schlagel teaches removing objects from the tray that are not acceptable (col. 4, lines 24-29) and placing the removed objects in a rejected object tray prior to placing the tray in the first location with the acceptable object (col. 3, lines 66+ and col. 4, lines 1-8) for the purpose of providing new pallets for further inspection of items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sun, as taught by Schlagel, for the purpose of providing new pallets for further inspection of items.
Regarding claim 15, Sun does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Schlagel teaches a rejected object tray (element 14); and an object vacuum removal system configured to remove one or more objects in a tray and place the objects in the rejected object tray (element 202) for the purpose of removing failed objects for destruction or recycling (col. 4, lines 24-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sun, as taught by Schlagel, for the purpose of removing failed objects for destruction or recycling.
Regarding claim 16, Sun does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Schlagel teaches the controller is configured to cause the object vacuum removal system (element 202) to remove the one or more objects and place the one or more removed objects in the rejected object tray prior to placing the first tray in a first location (col. 3, lines 66+ and col. 4, lines 1-8) for the purpose of providing new pallets for further inspection of items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sun, as taught by Schlagel, for the purpose of providing new pallets for further inspection of items.
Regarding claim 20, Sun does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Schlagel teaches the gripper has a jaw configured to engage a slot of a tray (col. 6, lines 63+ and col. 7, lines 1-2) for the purpose of providing a positive grip for an overhead transport mechanism. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sun, as taught by Schlagel, for the purpose of a positive grip for an overhead transport mechanism.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under USC 103
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” Also, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as stated in the Office Action in view of Sun, Culp, Casanelles, and Takagi fails to establish any teaching, suggestion, or motivation that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify or combine these references to produce the specific tray handling, sensor equipped, and multi- camera inspection system currently recited in claims 1 and 12. In accordance with KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a rejection should articulate a clear reason or rationale why a skilled artisan would make the proposed modifications. Here, the cited references have different objectives and do not address the same problems as the present invention. Thus, they provide no motivation or reasonable expectation of success for combining their teachings in the manner required by claims 1 or 12,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts, as stated in the rejection above, the teachings of Culp, Casanelles, and Takagi are obvious modifications to Sun that teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12. Culp teaches the tray holding an object, Casanelles teaches the item being moved as a tray, and Takagi teaches shelf rack being attached to the robot base. As such, the combination is an obvious modification to Sun’s removing, by a robotic arm mounted to a robot base, an item from a mobile shelf rack. Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached on 571-272-7805. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights