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 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 26 is 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.
In claim 26, line 1, “the insertion axis” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tateno et al. (WO2020/213652A1).
Regarding claim 14, Tateno discloses a system (Fig. 1 and 2) implementing a method for identifying vents (2) in a tire vulcanization mold (1) comprising one or more segments and an inner surface over which the vents are dispersed in order to allow corresponding valves to be inserted therein, the system comprising: a robot (12) incorporating a detection system (25) with one or more sensors that detect a presence of one or more vents dispersed along the inner surface of the one or more segments of the mold (note page 8, last paragraph of the translated text); a communication network that manages incoming data to the system from the detection system (note input unit 31 in Fig. 4; page 10 of the translated text); except
one or more communication servers, each comprising one or more processors operationally connected to a memory configured to store an application for analyzing data representing imaged molds, with the one or more processors comprising a module for executing the analysis application that processes the images and being capable of executing programmed instructions stored in the memory in order to carry out the following steps: a step of detecting a presence of an arrangement of vents in a field of view of the detection system, which detection system triggers in order to capture at least one image of the inner surface of the one or more segments of the mold; and a step of searching, in the image captured by the detection system, for a presence of the detected vents, such that the detection system continues to capture images if no vent is detected, until the search for the mold is exhausted. Instead, Tateno broadly states that the vent hole detection unit 25 photographs the tire vulcanization mold 1 and detects the position of the vent hole 2 of the tire vulcanization mold 1 (note page 8, last paragraph of the translated text). Without given out further details, Tateno implicitly suggests that any convention vent hole detecting means can be employed as the vent hole detection unit 25.
Huang, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches a hole detector (Fig. 2) including one or more communication servers, each comprising one or more processors operationally connected to a memory configured to store an application for analyzing data representing imaged molds, with the one or more processors comprising a module for executing the analysis application that processes the images and being capable of executing programmed instructions stored in the memory in order to carry out the following steps (note the paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10 of the translated text): a step of detecting a presence of an arrangement of vents in a field of view of the detection system, which detection system triggers in order to capture at least one image of the inner surface of the one or more segments of the mold (note page 10, last paragraph of the translated text); and a step of searching, in the image captured by the detection system, for a presence of the detected vents, such that the detection system continues to capture images if no vent is detected, until the search for the mold is exhausted (note the paragraph bridging pages 14 and 15 of the translated text). As shown in Fig. 6, the inner wall of the structure P1 is being searched for holes by using capturing area T in a rotational manner as indicated by the arrow. Huang also teaches that the system can be used to detect hole in any object (note page 8 of the translated text).
Therefore, knowing that the vent hole detection unit 25 in Tateno can be any conventional hole detector, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Huang into Tateno to perform the well known vent hole detection operations as claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Tateno discloses that the vent hole detection unit 25 includes a 3D sensor (page 8 of the translated text) but without mentioning the RGB-D type as claimed. The examiner takes Official Notice that using RGB-D type cameras to capture a 3-dimensional image with depth is well known in the art. Therefore, knowing that the 3D sensor in Tateno can be any conventional 3D sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the well known 3D RGB-D type sensor as the 3D sensor in Tateno.
Regarding claim 21, Tateno discloses the robot comprises a peripheral gripping component (note section 12 in Fig. 2) supported by a pivotable elongate arm (note section 15 in Fig. 2), with the peripheral gripping component extending from the elongate arm to a free end where a gripper (note section 11) is disposed along a common longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 22, Tateno does not disclose that the gripper comprises a pivotable clamp incorporating gripping fingers that extend from a platform where the pivotable clamp is fixed to the free end of the peripheral gripping component, with each finger comprising a member with a predetermined length that extends between an actuation end, where movement of the finger occurs, and an opposite gripping end, where the finger grips the valve. The examiner takes Official Notice that using a pivotable clamp incorporating gripping fingers for gripping or grabbing an object in an robotic arm is well known in the art. The gripping fingers enable the robotic arm, such as the one in Tateno, to grip or grab and move an object from one location to another. Thus, in view of the robotic arm 12 in Tateno, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the well known pivotable clamp incorporating gripping fingers into Tateno so that the robotic arm could be used to grip and move an object to a desired location.
Regarding claim 23, Tateno discloses that the one or more processors are capable of executing programmed instructions stored in the memory in order to carry out a step of moving the robot (note page 10 of the translated text) so that the robot can place a drill bit 22 so that it can be inserted into an identified vent in a segment of the mold (Fig. 5). Although the drill bit 22 is being inserted into the vent hole instead of the valve as claimed, the latter is considered an intended use of Tateno since the robotic arm can be used to insert different objects into the vent hole by attaching a desired object to the choke of the drill motor 21.
Regarding claim 24, in addition of rejection to claim 14 as set forth above, Tateno further discloses a step of positioning the mold in the field of view of the detection system (note last paragraph of page 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 and 25 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.
Claim 26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. 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).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422