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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 6/09/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-9 and 12-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 12-15 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,766,700. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as the instant claims are merely broader versions of the patented claims and Applicant has ample rationale to seek broader claim coverage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4-8, 11, 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prinz (US 2017/0097305) in view of Brisebrat et al. (“Brisebrat”)(US 2019/0079106), Hirota (US 2021/0072734), Voight et al. (“Voight”)(US 2008/0001104) and legal precedent.
Prinz (fig. 1-3) teaches robotic inspection platform comprising:
(re: certain elements of claim 1) a robotic arm comprising an end effector and a plurality of articulable segments, the robotic arm being configured to manipulate containers (fig. 2, 3 showing grippers 3, 5, 7, 9 and para. 12, 22-27 teaching that supporting structure of grippers allows rotation and articulation of grippers to move end effectors into multiple orientations via multiple pivot axis as well as up and down capabilities); and
a controller configured to:
cause the robotic arm to retrieve, using the end effector, a container (fig. 1 and para. 10, 12, 15, 21-31 teaching handling and evaluation modules that cause gripper to load containers from loading station 30 and then articulate containers to multiple orientations at different test stations—such as 31, 33, 34, wherein evaluation system uses data generated by an imaging system to sort containers to output station via 43 if free from defects—i.e., detection of dirt within container—or to conveyor 41 if defective; fig. 2 and para. 10, 11, 24 and 25 teaching imaging system including multiple lighting elements and camera sensors 35, 37),
cause the robotic arm to manipulate the container using the end effector, such that the container is sequentially placed in a plurality of orientations while the container is in view of an imager (Id. with para. 24-27 teaching that gripper arm rotates containers into multiple positions about carousel—wherein containers are vertical, and grippers also moves containers about a horizontal axis into a horizontal position, wherein camera sensors are configured to take images after each movement—see e.g., fig. 2 wherein camera sensors 37 are configured to take images of containers after being rotated into a horizontal position by gripper arm at station 31),
determine one or more attributes of the container, or a sample within the container, by analyzing images of the container captured by the imager using a pattern recognition model (Id. with para. 31 teaching that “image recognition methods of prior art” can be performed by “using reference picture showing contamination-free containers and permitting a calibration” of the imaging system, thus Examiner regards comparison with a reference image as “pattern recognition), and
based on the one or more attributes of the container or the sample, either
cause the robotic arm to place the container in an area reserved for rejected containers and/or samples (Id. teaching removal of defective containers in the direction of arrow 45 in fig. 1); or
(ii) cause the robotic arm to place the container in an area reserved for containers and/or samples that have not been rejected (Id. with para. 27 teaching that at output station gripper arm moves defect-free samples to output conveyor 41 shown in fig. 1);
(re: claim 4) wherein the controller is configured to distinguish between different types of objects by analyzing the plurality of images using the pattern recognition model (para. 31);
(re: claim 5) wherein the different types of objects include bubbles and particles (para. 12 teaching that system may distinguish between contaminants and bubbles);
(re: claim 6) wherein the different types of objects include one or both of (i) specific types of bubbles and (ii) specific types of particles (Id.);
(re: claim 7) wherein the controller is further configured to distinguish between the different types of objects based on one or more criteria that include at least one criterion dependent upon object type (para. 10, 11, 29 teaching analysis of different container and particles types);
(re: claim 8) wherein the plurality of orientations includes a plurality of rotations about a longitudinal axis of the container (fig. 1, 2).
(re: claims 12 and 15-17) The claimed method steps are performed in the normal operation of the combined system described below.
Prinz as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claims 1, 12, 15-16) the robotic arm being configured with greater than four degrees of freedom of movement;
(re: claims 11, 17) wherein the robotic arm is configured to manipulate the containers with six degrees of freedom of movement, and wherein the container has a first roll angle and a first pitch angle in a first orientation of the plurality of orientations, and the container has (i) a second roll angle that is different from the first roll angle or (ii) a second pitch angle that is different from the first pitch angle in a second orientation of the plurality of orientations.
Brisebrat, however, teaches that it is well-known in the robotic/vision inspection arts
(re: certain elements of claims 1, 12, 15-16)
- to configure a robotic arm as a “poly-articulated robot comprising joints defining at least six axis of rotation and adapted for displacing and/or orienting a terminal member according to six degrees of freedom” to achieve greater flexibility in handling of containers at surrounding workstations at different heights and orientations and for more compact workspaces and (fig. 1, 2 showing poly-articulated robot; para. 10-12, 17, 73-77, 110-121).
Hirota further teaches that it is well-known in the robotic/vision inspection arts
(re: certain elements of claims 1, 12, 15-16)
- to configure a robotic arm with 6-axis articulation to allow more flexibility in task execution (fig. 2 near 103, 203 and para. 25-27, 47 teaching that six-axis articulated robot arm allow object pick up and object orientation for camera, wherein robot planning unit 302 determines optimal orientation for imaging—Examiner regards the 6-axis articulation as configured to manipulate the containers with six degrees of freedom at different roll and pitch angles).
Voigt further teaches it is well-known in the image analysis arts to analyze both the sample and the container holding the sample, and that taking a plurality of images from multiple orientations with multiple cameras improves determination of faults in the sample—as well as the container—that provides a more thorough analysis (fig. 2, 5 and 6, para. 1, 9-21, 55-67 teaching rotation of containers to allow processing of multiple images taken from).
Indeed, the claimed features relating to the various roll and pitch angles at different orientations (re: claims 11, 17) can be regarded as common design parameters/operating variables controlled by the design incentives and/or economic considerations involved in this type of subject matter. This is especially applicable in the vision inspection arts as expressly taught above regarding different object orientations. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”); see also MPEP 2144.04.V.D. and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement or duplication of known elements, or making known elements adjustable, is not a patentable advance).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found
in the prior art itself as cited above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Prinz for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prinz, Brisebrat, Hirota, Voight and legal precedent (“Prinz et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Timmis et al. (“Timmis”)(US 2004/0072143) and Jacobs et al. (“Jacobs”)(US 2016/0085940).
Prinz et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claims 2, 13) wherein the controller is configured to determine the one or more attributes of the container or the sample by analyzing the plurality of images using a machine learning model, the machine learning model being trained to classify container and/or sample attributes.
Here, it is noted that Prinz et al. already teach that a variety of image recognition and analysis methods may be implemented to process a series of images—including the use of reference pictures and a calibration of the image system and machine learning in the robotic task context (Prinz supra and Hirota, para. 24 teaching neural network model that collects learning data to perform incremental learning).
Timmis further teaches that it is well-known in the sorting arts to implement pattern recognition and machine learning models—with training modes—when processing multiple images of an object as these tools allow more precise processing of vast amounts of image data and thus greatly improve the efficiency of an image sorting system (para. 10-12, 33 teaching use of predictive classification algorithms, including pattern recognition and machine learning components, that use multi-viewpoint images; para. 35 teaching that algorithms may utilize a training set of multiple images).
Jacobs also teaches that it is well-known to implement pattern recognition models and user input during calibration to improve the accuracy and efficiency of an image sorting system (para. 31-34, 84-87 teaching multi-point image analysis with user verification as well as comparison to database).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found
in the prior art itself as cited above that expressly teaches that it is known to implement the claimed pattern recognition models to improve accuracy and efficiency of the sorting process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Prinz et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
July 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights