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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a plurality of illumination units corresponding to the plurality of cameras”. Since claim 1 can include a singular camera, it appears the claim language should be "a plurality of illumination units, each illumination unit corresponding to each corresponding camera”.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, it appears claims should be “the one or more plurality of cameras” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“an acquisition unit that acquires a detection signal of the workpiece by a detection sensor, conveyor information including a conveyance speed of the conveyor, and installation information...” in claims 1, 17 and 18
“a recognition unit that recognizes a conveyance state of the workpiece...” in claims 1, 17 and 18
“a processing determination unit that determines a control parameter...” in claims 1, 17 and 18
“a communication unit that transmits the control parameter...” in claims 1, 17 and 18
“an illumination control unit that controls an illumination unit...” in claims 17 and 18
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 § 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.
Claims 1-18 are 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.
Claims 1, 17 and 18 recite “a conveyance state of the workpiece”. It is unclear what the applicant means by “a conveyance state of the workpiece”. Does the applicant mean a position of the workpiece on a conveyor belt, or an orientation of the workpiece on a conveyor belt? Please clarify.
Claims 1, 17 and 18 recite “processing determination unit that determines a control parameter corresponding to a conveyance position of the workpiece on the conveyor for each code reader based on the conveyance state and the installation information of each code reader”. The phrase “based on the conveyance state and the installation information of each code reader” implies that the conveyance state is of each code reader, which is confusing, since prior limitation recites “a conveyance state of the workpiece”. Therefore, it is unclear what “based on the conveyance state” modifies. More specifically, it is unclear if the applicant intends there to be a conveyance state of the code reader as well as a conveyance state of the workpiece. Please clarify. Suggested language is “processing determination unit that determines a control parameter for each code reader, the control parameter corresponds to a conveyance position of the workpiece on the conveyor and is based on the conveyance state of the workpiece and the installation information of each code reader”. Additionally, as recited above, it is not clear what “the conveyance state” would be, and appears to be different than “a conveyance position” since the applicant has claimed them separately. Please clarify.
Claims 2, 5, 9-12, 15 and 16 also recite “the conveyance state”. Therefore, in view of the remarks above, it is unclear what “the conveyance state” refers to, i.e. “conveyance state of the code reader” or “conveyance state of the workpiece”. Please clarify.
Claim 8 recites “a plurality of bottom-surface cameras that read a common gap of a conveyor”. It is unclear if “a plurality of bottom-surface cameras” is a part of the “one or plurality of cameras” in claim 1. If so, proper antecedent basis is require for clarity, e.g. “the one or plurality of cameras include a plurality of bottom-surface cameras”. Additionally, it is unclear what the applicant means by the cameras read a common gap. Does the applicant mean the cameras detect a gap of the conveyor? Or does the applicant mean that the bottom-surface cameras detect the workpiece through a gap of the conveyor? This working is awkward and confusing. Please clarify. It is noted that para. [0020] of the specification recites “Since the gap between the upstream-side conveyance mechanism B 1 and the downstream-side conveyance mechanism B2 is included in the field of view C of the bottom-surface reading code reader 1C, when a bottom surface of the workpiece W being conveyed passes through the gap, the bottom surface can be captured by the code reader 1C”. If the applicant is attempting to refer to this function, the claim language does not imply this.
Claims 10-13 and 15 recite “each capturing cycle”. It is unclear what capturing cycle the applicant is referring to since claim 1 and claim 14 fail to recite a capturing cycle. Please clarify. It is noted that a capturing cycle is recited in claims 2 and 3. As such, it is not clear if the applicant intended these claims to be dependent from claim 2 or claim 3.
Claim 14 recites “the detection sensor includes a dimension measurement function that further detects workpiece information including at least one of a position of the workpiece in a conveyor width direction and a height of the workpiece, or a dimension measurement unit, separate from the detection sensor”. It is unclear what the applicant means by “separate from the detection sensor”. Please clarify. Additionally, when the applicant recites “a dimension measurement unit”, does the applicant mean a dimension of the workpiece other than a height of the workpiece since a height is already recited? Please clarify. The term “a dimension measurement unit” is awkward, in that it is not certain if “a dimension measurement unit” refers to a mere dimension of the workpiece.
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 18, the claim limitations “an acquisition unit that acquires a detection signal of the workpiece by a detection sensor, conveyor information including a conveyance speed of the conveyor, and installation information...”, “a recognition unit that recognizes a conveyance state of the workpiece...”, “a processing determination unit that determines a control parameter...”, and “a communication unit that transmits the control parameter...”, and in claims 17 and 18 the claim limitation “an illumination control unit that controls an illumination unit...” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. There is no way to determine the metes and bounds of these limitations, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which 4 mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of acquiring a detection signal of the workpiece by a detection sensor, conveyor information including a conveyance speed of the conveyor, and installation information...., claimed function of recognizing a conveyance state of the workpiece..., claimed function of determining a control parameter..., claimed function of transmitting a control parameter..., and claimed function of controlling an illumination unit... The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Because there is inadequate disclosure of the claimed invention, the inventor has also not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. Correction is required.
Examiner’s Remarks
With respect to claim(s) 1-18, the examiner makes no prior art rejection. However, these claims are not allowable pursuant to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, rejections, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nagata et al. (US 2021/0295001) discloses a code reader system that reads a code attached to a workpiece downstream of a detection sensor that detects the workpiece conveyed on a conveyor based on a detection signal from the detection sensor ([0071]), the code reader system comprising:
one or a plurality of code readers (1) each including an illumination control unit that controls an illumination unit (4) that irradiates the workpiece, a camera (5) that generates images based on reflected light from the workpiece, and a decoder that executes decoding processing of the code attached to the workpiece based on the images generated by the camera ([0071], [0072], [0080]); and
a controller that includes an acquisition unit that acquires the detection signal, a conveyance speed of the conveyor, and installation information indicating a position and a posture of each code reader of the one or plurality of code readers in a conveyor coordinate system of the conveyor ([0095], [0099]-[0105], [0157], [0177], [0179]), and a recognition unit that recognizes a conveyance state of the workpiece based on the detection signal and the conveyance speed ([0095]).
Reichenbach (US 6,371,371) discloses it is known to detect position and a posture (angle) of a barcode reader in a conveyor coordinate system of a conveyor (col. 2, lines 10-13; abstract).
Telephone/Fax Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUEZU ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 7:00 pm EST.
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 Lee can be reached at (571)272-2398. 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.
/SUEZU ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876