N O N - F I N A L A C T I O N
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/24 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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. Examiner notes that the current title “OBJECT IMAGING APPARATUS AND OBJECT RECOGNITION APPARATUS” is a good starting point but recommends adding analogous language to “FOR IMAGING AN OBJECT ON A CONVEYOR” into the current title. For example, Examiner recommends the following amended new title:
“OBJECT IMAGING APPARATUS AND OBJECT RECOGNITION APPARATUS FOR IMAGING AN OBJECT ON A CONVEYOR”
Election / Restriction
Applicant’s reply filed on 5/05/26, elected Species I (drawn to Fig. 1 & 2, para [0043-46]) readable on claims 1-8 & 10-15 with traverse. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Examiner did not accurately characterize the configuration shown in Fig. 1 & 2 which was identified as Species I. Applicant asserts Fig. 1 & 2 do not show “two beams supported by a single pillar located on one side of the belt” but rather the correct characterization shown in Fig. 1 & 2 is a two-pillar arrangement, wherein each pillar 44 supports its corresponding beam 45, and the pillars 44 are located only on one side with respect to the width direction of the belt 12. Examiner agrees with this corrected characterization.
Examiner agrees that the mutually exclusive characteristic distinguishing Species I from the other identified species is the spatial arrangement of the supporting structure relative to the belt.
Examiner agrees and confirms that Species I, as represented by FIGS. 1 & 2 and supported by para [0043-46] of the present application, encompasses configurations in which the pillars are located only on one side of the belt with respect to the width direction, including the two-pillar arrangement depicted in FIGS. 1 and 2.
Therefore, claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities in LINEs 2 and 4 which misspells the term “conveyor” as “conveyer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Closest Prior Art
The prior art (cited on PTO-892) is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Among these, the following references are considered to be the closest, collectively disclosing the state of the art concerned with digital imaging objects transported on a conveyor belt system.
BARNES (US 20180302572) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see below.
FRITSCH (US 20080316368) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see below.
OKAMOTO (US 20170023488 & US 9,939,387) – see Abstract, Fig. 1-4, and para [0029-45].
BOTT (US 20200314351) – see Abstract, Fig. 1-4, and para [0058-71].
HONGO (WO-2022162978) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, (note: US 20230364651 will be used as an English translation), see Abstract, Fig. 1-4, and para [0023].
SCHULTZ (US 7,327,396) – see Abstract, Fig. 1B and 1C.
NOTE: Examiner welcomes INTERVIEW(s) to discuss the instant application’s claimed invention as it corresponds to the specification embodiments, as well as, discussing the similarities/differences taught/not taught by prior art. In the interest of compact prosecution, Applicant’s arguments/amendments should not only address the cited closest art applied/relied on in the 35 USC 102/103 rejection (below), but also address the other cited closest art not applied/relied on.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 1-6, 8, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARNES (US 20180302572) in view of FRITSCH (US 20080316368) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1, BARNES teaches an object imaging apparatus, comprising:
an imaging device facing a conveyor that conveys an object to image the object conveyed by the conveyor (Fig. 6 in view of Fig.1 and para [0035-38, 0042-43, 0045, 0052]: element 103 “imaging device” is a truss assembly that may be mounted / suspended to various support structures (i.e. that include robotic cable gantry system, crane, mast, technodolly) AND faces a conveyor 155 that conveys an object(s) 157 to be captured. The size/scale and shape of the truss assembly 103 and number of cameras/lights are dependent on the application used per para [0035 & 0038]).
Regarding underlined limitation (with emphasis in bold): “a first supporter that is located on the same side as the imaging device relative to the conveyor with a space from the conveyor and is to support the imaging device; and a second supporter that is located in a second installation portion different from a first installation portion in which a conveying device including the conveyor is located and is to support the first supporter, wherein the second supporter is provided only on one side with respect a width direction of the conveyor”,
BARNES taught “imaging device” truss assembly 103 (Fig. 1 & 6) may be mounted / suspended to various support structures (113) that include robotic cable gantry system, crane, mast, technodolly, wherein the size/scale and shape of the truss assembly 103 and number of cameras/lights are dependent on the application used as discussed above over para [0035-38, 0042-43], which are known in the art to comprise support structures analogous to Applicant’s “second supporter” (pillar) on one side of conveyor that supports a “first supporter” (beam) supporting the imaging device as claimed in the underlined limitation.
Since BARNES’ does not explicitly show the specific details of underlined limitations for any of BARNES’ taught support structures 113 (i.e. that includes robotic cable gantry system, crane, mast, technodolly), Examiner provides an example of an imaging device supported to an industrial robot. See prior art FRITSCH (Fig. 3-4, para [0012, 0015, 0052-54]) which discloses a six-shaft industrial robot constructed as an articulated-arm robot 8 having a vertical support (shown at element 8) “second supporter” (pillar) that connects to a horizontal support (shown by elements 25-28) “first supporter” (beam) that supports a imaging device with an imager (shown by camera holder 29 and camera 3), wherein an optical axis of the imager can be parallel to the second supporter (pillar) by arm robot having camera 3 oriented downwards due to the six axes of rotation capability per para [0012, 0015].
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of FRITSCH into suitable modification with the teachings of BARNES to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON to provide a suitable support structure for imaging objects in the analogous art of support structures configured to hold a digital camera.
As per CLAIM 2, BARNES in view of FRITSCH teaches the object imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second supporter supports the first supporter in a cantilever manner (This feature is obvious over the combined teachings of BARNES’ taught support structures 113 (i.e. robotic cable gantry system, crane, mast, technodolly) for imaging device 103 in Fig. 6 (para [0042, 0043, 0045, 0052]) in view of FRITSCH’s six-shaft industrial robot constructed as an articulated-arm robot 8 per Fig. 3-4, para [0012, 0015, 0052-54]).
As per CLAIM 3, BARNES in view of FRITSCH teaches the object imaging apparatus according to claim 1. Regarding the limitation (emphasis in bold): “wherein the first supporter includes two beams provided at an interval in a conveying direction in which the object is conveyed”, BARNES’ taught support structures 113 (i.e. that includes robotic cable gantry system, crane, mast, technodolly), Examiner provided an example of an imaging device supported to an industrial robot which is an example of support structures 113 having one beam over the additional teachings of FRITSCH’s (Fig. 3-4, para [0012, 0015, 0052-54]) six-shaft industrial robot constructed as an articulated-arm robot 8.
However, Official Notice (MPEP § 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of using a first supporter that includes two beams is well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two beams for the MOTIVATED REASON of enhancing the structural integrity of the support structure in the analogous art of support structures configured to hold a digital camera.
As per CLAIM 4, BARNES in view of FRITSCH teaches the object imaging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a support structure that includes the first supporter and the second supporter and is to adjust a position of the imaging device relative to the conveyor in a facing direction in which the conveyor and the imaging device face each other (This feature is obvious over the combined teachings of BARNES’ taught support structures 113 (i.e. robotic cable gantry system, crane, mast, technodolly) for imaging device 103 in Fig. 6 (para [0042, 0043, 0045, 0052]) in view of FRITSCH’s six-shaft industrial robot constructed as an articulated-arm robot 8 per Fig. 3-4, para [0012, 0015, 0052-54], which both teach adjusting position of the support structure and imaging device).
As per CLAIM 5, BARNES in view of FRITSCH teaches the object imaging apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the support structure includes a position adjuster to adjust at least one of a position of the first supporter relative to the second supporter in the facing direction in which the conveyor and the imaging device face each other and a position of the imaging device relative to the first supporter in the facing direction (This feature is obvious over the combined teachings of BARNES’ taught support structures 113 (i.e. robotic cable gantry system, crane, mast, technodolly) for imaging device 103 opposite conveyor 155 in Fig. 6 (para [0042, 0043, 0045, 0052]) in view of FRITSCH’s six-shaft industrial robot constructed as an articulated-arm robot 8 per Fig. 3-4, para [0012, 0015, 0052-54], which both teach adjusting position of the support structure and imaging device).
As per CLAIM 6, BARNES in view of FRITSCH teaches the object imaging apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the support structure adjusts a posture of the imaging device (This feature is obvious over the combined teachings of BARNES’ taught support structures 113 (i.e. robotic cable gantry system, crane, mast, technodolly) for imaging device 103 in Fig. 6 (para [0042, 0043, 0045, 0052]) in view of FRITSCH’s six-shaft industrial robot constructed as an articulated-arm robot 8 per Fig. 3-4, para [0012, 0015, 0052-54], which both teach adjusting position of the support structure and imaging device).
As per CLAIM 8, BARNES in view of FRITSCH teaches the object imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the imaging device is located opposite the conveyor relative to the first supporter and is supported by the first supporter (This feature is obvious over the combined teachings of BARNES’ taught support structures 113 (i.e. robotic cable gantry system, crane, mast, technodolly) for imaging device 103 opposite conveyor 155 in Fig. 6 (para [0042, 0043, 0045, 0052]) in view of FRITSCH’s six-shaft industrial robot constructed as an articulated-arm robot 8 per Fig. 3-4, para [0012, 0015, 0052-54]).
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 14, BARNES teaches an imaging apparatus comprising:
an imaging device (Fig. 6 in view of Fig.1 and para [0035-38, 0042-43, 0045, 0052]: element 103 “imaging device” is a truss assembly that may be mounted / suspended to various support structures that include robotic cable gantry system, crane, mast, technodolly. The size/scale and shape of the truss assembly 103 and number of cameras/lights are dependent on the application used per para [0035 & 0038]) including:
a housing having an opening (Fig. 6 in view of Fig.1: as shown element 103 has a housing that may vary in size/scale (para [0035]) and be various shapes (para [0038]) and housing is open at bottom 117 opening 121 per para [0045]);
a light source disposed inside the housing and configured to illuminate an object through the opening (Fig. 6 in view of Fig.1 and para [0037]: light source 107 illuminates object 157);
and an imager disposed inside the housing and configured to capture the illuminated object through the opening (Fig. 6 in view of Fig.1 and para [0037]: digital camera 111 illuminates object 157).
Regarding underlined limitation (with emphasis in bold): “a cantilever beam assembly including: a pillar; a cantilever beam having: a free end extending from the pillar; and a fixed end attached to the pillar, wherein the cantilever beam assembly is configured to support the imaging device, and an optical axis of the imager is parallel to the pillar”,
BARNES taught “imaging device” truss assembly 103 (Fig. 1 & 6) may be mounted / suspended to various support structures that include robotic cable gantry system, crane, mast, technodolly, wherein the size/scale and shape of the truss assembly 103 and number of cameras/lights are dependent on the application used as discussed above over para [0035-38, 0042-43], which are known in the art to comprise support structures analogous to Applicant’s a cantilever beam assembly including: a pillar and a cantilever beam.
Since BARNES’ does not explicitly show the specific details of underlined limitations for any of BARNES’ taught support structures (i.e. robotic cable gantry system, crane, mast, technodolly), Examiner provides an example of an imaging device supported to an industrial robot. See prior art FRITSCH (Fig. 3-4, para [0012, 0015, 0052-54]) which discloses a six-shaft industrial robot constructed as an articulated-arm robot 8 “cantilever beam assembly” having a vertical support (shown at element 8) “pillar” that connects to a horizontal support (shown by elements 25-28) “cantilever beam having: a free end extending from the pillar; and a fixed end attached to the pillar”, that “supports a imaging device” with an imager (shown by camera holder 29 and camera 3), wherein the said “an optical axis of the imager is parallel to the pillar” is met by FRITSCH because the arm robot can have the camera 3 oriented downwards (due to the six axes of rotation capability per para [0012, 0015]) which gives an optical axis parallel to the “pillar” vertical support (shown at element 8).
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of FRITSCH into suitable modification with the teachings of BARNES to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON to provide a suitable support structure for imaging objects in the analogous art of support structures configured to hold a digital camera.
As per CLAIM 15, BARNES in view of FRITSCH teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the object is transported by a conveyer, and wherein the cantilever beam assembly further includes a base configured to support the pillar, and the base is not a part of the conveyer (This feature is considered obvious over the combined teachings discussed in claim 14 – see BARNES, Fig. 6 and para [0052]: object 157 transported by a conveyer 155, wherein the “imaging device” truss assembly 103 (Fig. 1 & 6) may be mounted / suspended to various support structures (i.e. robotic cable gantry system, crane, mast, technodolly) which would teach a base is not a part of the conveyer. In further view of the teachings of FRITSCH, Fig. 3-4: articulated-arm robot 8 has a base 23 that supports pillar).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARNES (US 20180302572) in view of FRITSCH (US 20080316368) in view of HONGO (WO-2022162978, note: US 20230364651 will be used as an English translation) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per CLAIM 11, BARNES in view of FRITSCH teaches the object imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the imaging device includes: a housing facing the conveyor (BARNES, Fig. 6 in view of Fig.1: as shown element 103 has a housing that may vary in size/scale (para [0035]) and be various shapes (para [0038]) and housing is open at bottom 117 opening 121 per para [0045] facing conveyor 155), an imager to image the object conveyed by the conveyor through an inside of the housing (BARNES, x), and a light source to emit light to the inside of the housing (BARNES, Fig. 6 in view of Fig.1 and para [0037]: light source 107 illuminates inside of housing and object 157 to be captured).
Regarding underlined limitation (with emphasis in bold): “wherein the housing includes a reflection face that reflects the light from the light source toward the conveyor”, BARNES’ lights 107 (Fig. 6) is considered to meet this limitation which the housing of imaging device 103 inherently has surfaces that reflect light from the light source toward the conveyor.
However, to more robustly/further show this feature of a reflection face was known in the art in, Examiner evidences related prior art HONGO (See FIG. 2: housing with reflection member 24, lights 25, and conveyor 6. Also see FIG. 7: housing with reflection member 64, lights 65, and conveyor 6).
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of HONGO into suitable modification with the teachings of BARNES in view of FRITSCH to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON to provide a housing for effectively imaging objects in the analogous art of imaging devices for capturing objects on a conveyor device.
As per CLAIM 12, BARNES in view of FRITSCH in view of HONGO teaches the object imaging apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the imager is an area image sensor (The prior art combination discussed are all considered to teach using digital cameras which inherently have an area image sensor. HONGO, Fig. 2 and para [0023]: digital camera 22).
As per CLAIM 13, BARNES in view of FRITSCH teaches the object recognition apparatus, comprising: the object imaging apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1).
Regarding underlined limitation (with emphasis in bold): “circuitry configured to recognize the object based on a captured image obtained by imaging the object by the imaging device”, BARNES in view of FRITSCH do not appear to specifically discuss object recognition, however, this feature was known in the art. For example, see HONGO (Abstract, Fig. 1-2 and para [0018, 0023]: housing 12 has digital camera 22 and object recognition device 10).
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of HONGO into suitable modification with the teachings of BARNES in view of FRITSCH to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON to use object recognition for adjusting position and effectively capturing objects in the analogous art of imaging devices for capturing objects on a conveyor device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 10 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the EXAMINER should be directed to AKSHAY TREHAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-5252. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 10am – 6pm during the weekdays Monday – Friday.
Interviews with the examiner are available via telephone AND video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may contact the examiner via telephone OR use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR), which can be found at: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TWYLER HASKINS can be reached on (571) 272-7406. 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.
/AKSHAY TREHAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
