CTNF 19/048,201 CTNF 76050 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the implied language like; “According to one embodiment”, “The determination device is configured”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-15 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. A number of times in the claims an action is recited without having positively recited the component doing the action first. See MPEP 2115 “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." Claim 5 recites the limitations "the encoder" and “the clustering model”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Should probably be changed to –an encoder—and –a clustering model--. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 6-7 ( as best understood ) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Komoda et al (US2024/0066688) . A determination device, configured to: acquire an image (fig. 12 S3) of an object (“O”) to be gripped (0010 & 0011 “grips the object” 0091 “object visible in the input image can be safely gripped”); input the image (fig. 1 & “the sensor 30 is an image sensor”) to a determination part (“selection device 10 ”), the determination part including a first model (0018 “the selection device inputs the image to a first model”), the first model being trained (Abstract “first model that is trained and acquires the grip point output from the first model”, 0031); and obtain, from the determination part, an acquisition method (0018 “selection device selects an acquisition method of a grip”) of a gripping point (“grip point for gripping an object”) at which a gripper (“gripper 55 ”) is to grip the object (0018 & figures 7 & 8), according to the input of the image, the determination part outputting, as the acquisition method (0018, 0120), one of a first method (fig. 12 S6) of calculating exterior shape data (figures 4 & 5) of the object based on the image and calculating the gripping point by using the exterior shape data (0018, 0030, claim 1), a second method (fig. 12 S6) of inputting the image to a second model and acquiring the gripping point output from the second model, the second model being trained (0018, 0031, 0120), or a third method of acquiring the gripping point by the gripping point being designated. Claim 6 Komoda discloses a processing system, comprising: the determination device according to claim 1; and an arithmetic device (20) configured to acquire the gripping point (0029) by using the acquisition method (0033) determined by the determination device (“selection device 10”). Claim 7 Komoda discloses a system according to claim 6, further comprising: a transfer device including the gripper (0025 “The transfer device 50 includes a gripper 55 .”); and a control device moving the gripper to the gripping point obtained by the arithmetic device (0026) . 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim 11 ( as best understood ) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Komoda et al (US2024/0066688) . A transfer system (0003), comprising: a transfer device (50) including a gripper (0025 “The transfer device 50 includes a gripper 55 ”), the transfer device being configured to handle an object with the gripper (0025 “The gripper 55 can grip an object”); and a determination device configured to acquire an image of an object (0027 “acquires an image by imaging the object”), input the image (fig. 1 & “the sensor 30 is an image sensor”) to a determination part (“selection device 10 ”) including a first model, the first model being trained (Abstract “a first model that is trained”), and obtain, from the determination part, an acquisition method of a gripping point (0018 “an acquisition method of a grip point for gripping an object”) at which the gripper is to grip the object (0117 “moves the gripper 55 to the grip point (step S 8 ) and causes the gripper 55 to grip the object (step S 9 )”), according to the input of the image, the determination part outputting, as the acquisition method (Abstract, 0018, claim 1), one of a first method of calculating exterior shape data of the object based on the image and calculating the gripping point by using the exterior shape data (Abstract, 0018), a second method of inputting the image to a second model and acquiring the gripping point output from the second model, the second model being trained (Abstract, 0018), or a third method of acquiring the gripping point by the gripping point being designated . 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 12, 15 ( as best understood ) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Komoda et al (US2024/0066688) . A determination method, comprising: causing a computer (0129 “computer 90 (a processing device) shown in FIG. 14 ”) to acquire an image of an object to be gripped (0027 “The sensor 30 detects the object to be gripped “, “acquires an image by imaging the object”), input the image (fig. 1 & “the sensor 30 is an image sensor”) to a determination part (“selection device 10 ”) including a first model, the first model being trained (Abstract “a first model that is trained”), and acquire, from the determination part, an acquisition method of a gripping point (0018 “an acquisition method of a grip point for gripping an object”) at which a gripper is to grip the object (0117 “moves the gripper 55 to the grip point (step S 8 ) and causes the gripper 55 to grip the object (step S 9 )”), according to the input of the image, the determination part outputting, as the acquisition method (Abstract, 0018, claim 1), one of a first method of calculating exterior shape data of the object based on the image and calculating the gripping point by using the exterior shape data (Abstract, 0018), a second method of inputting the image to a second model and acquiring the gripping point output from the second model, the second model being trained (Abstract, 0018), or a third method of acquiring the gripping point by the gripping point being designated. Claim 15 Komoda discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (0138 “another non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”), configured to: store a program, the program, when executed by the computer according to claim 12, causing the computer to perform the determination method according to claim 12 (claim 14) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-20-aia AIA 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, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komoda et al (US2024/0066688) in view of Hane et al (US 20200398424 A1) . Komoda does not disclose the determination part outputs the acquisition method and classifies a state of the object as one of normal without damage or abnormal with damage. Hane discloses a robot with gripping abilities (figures 5 & 6) and a determination part (determination section 110 (FIG. 10)) that outputs an acquisition method and classifies a state of the object as one of normal without damage or abnormal with damage (0040 & 0044). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this corner of robotics to upgrade Komoda with the data indicating state of Hane. A motivation for this combination would be to increase data for the robot to allow more nuanced control. This combination follows the KSR case law rationale A; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 3-5, 8-10, 13-14 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP. 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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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. MICHAEL C. ZARROLI Primary Examiner Art Unit 3658B /MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/048,201 Page 2 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/048,201 Page 3 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/048,201 Page 4 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/048,201 Page 5 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/048,201 Page 6 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/048,201 Page 7 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/048,201 Page 8 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/048,201 Page 9 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/048,201 Page 10 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/048,201 Page 11 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/048,201 Page 12 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 19/048,201 Page 13 Art Unit: 3658
Prosecution Insights