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 Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, the recitation “the teach point adjusted in the adjusting” (emphasis added) appears to be missing a clarifying word or words at the end of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11-12, 16-17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,167. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims have generally the same overlapping scope.
Instant claims 11 and 12 substantially correspond to allowed claim 1 from the ‘167 Patent.
Instant claim 16 substantially corresponds to allowed claim 3 from the ‘167 Patent.
Instant claim 17 substantially corresponds to allowed claim 4 from the ‘167 Patent.
Instant claim 20 substantially corresponds to allowed claim 11 from the ‘167 Patent.
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 11-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 2016/0059419).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki discloses a method of controlling a robot system that includes a robot, a vision sensor, and a controller, the method comprising:
obtaining visual information of an object held at a reference position (visual information of marker 8 of figure 2 is obtained) with a sensor portion of the vision sensor (sensor portion at 7 hand camera 7 of figure 2), the vision sensor having an engagement portion that is configured to be engaged to a portion of the robot (the camera is connected by mount 22 to the robot hand 2 of figure 2. Both the robot hand and mount comprise engagement portions);
calculating, with the controller, a positional relationship between the sensor portion of the vision sensor and the engagement portion of the vision sensor based on the visual information of the object and position information of the reference position (via the calculation of relative position between the two coordinate systems including hand coordinate system T and hand camera coordinate system V as set forth in at least [0056-0058, 0084-0086]); and
adjusting, with the controller, a teach point of the robot based on the positional relationship (see at least [0080] which teaches adjusting the teach points calculated from step S13 of figure 5 during calibration).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki discloses the adjusting the teach point further includes obtaining, with the vision sensor, visual information of the object for adjusting the teach point of the robot in a state where the engagement portion is engaged with the portion of the robot (see at least process of detecting the markers 8 in at least [0048-0057] and figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki discloses the obtaining visual information includes obtaining, with the vision sensor, visual information of the object for the calculating the positional relationship in a state where the engagement portion is not engaged with the portion of the robot (via the embodiment of figure 1 wherein the hand camera 7 is detached from camera mount 22).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki discloses the obtaining visual information includes obtaining, with the vision sensor, visual information of the object for the calculating the positional relationship in a state where the engagement portion is engaged with a portion positioned with respect to the object held in the reference position (see at least [0056-0058] which teaches the hand camera 7 is installed and uses hand camera coordinate system V or position, orientation, and calibration calculations based on the markers 8 of figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki discloses operating the robot in accordance with the teach point adjusted in the adjusting (see at least [0070, 0077, 0108, etc.] wherein the calibration of the teach points is equivalent to adjusting the initial teach points).
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki discloses the obtaining visual information includes capturing images of the object, which has three marks (see at least figure 3 which illustrates the workpiece station as having 3+ marks).
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki discloses the vision sensor includes a plurality of cameras, and wherein, in the calculating the positional relationship, the controller calculates the positional relationship based on the visual information of the object obtained with one of the plurality of cameras (at least figure 2 illustrates an additional fixed camera 3 to supplement hand camera 7).
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki discloses the adjusting of the teach point includes adjusting a posture of the robot based on the positional relationship calculated in the calculating and storing the adjusted posture of the robot as an adjusted teach point in a memory (see at least [0042] which discloses storing the calibration position and orientation values in various types of memory).
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki discloses the engagement portion of the vision sensor includes at least two pins configured to be engaged to the portion of the robot (via fingers 21 of figure 3 which act as “pins”. See also at least [0100] which teaches a pin is used to mount the camera portion to the robot hand portion. It is noted that should this limitation be further amended in a way that the robotic fingers could not be mapped to the “pins”, the pin taught in [0100] of Suzuki could be duplicated for obvious design reasons).
Regarding claims 20-29, Suzuki discloses all the limitations of the claims as addressed in rejected claims 11-19 above, and are thus rejected under the same rationale. It is noted the control of posture is covered by the rejection to claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON HOLLOWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Tommy Worden can be reached at 571-272-4876. 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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658