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 § 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 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haynes (US 10,591,420).
Regarding claim 1, Haynes discloses a scanner system for parts (Fig.1), the scanner system comprising:
a plurality of scanners (46, 48, 50, 52) mounted to a measurement head (24);
a part support (12);
a conveyor mechanism to change a relative location of the part support (Col.5, lines 38-41) and the measurement head along a scan path (Fig.1) during scanning (Col.5, lines 46-48); and
an alignment artifact (56) located along the scan path (Fig.1).
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 2-7, 12-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes (US 10,591,420) in view of Allen (US 4,462,443).
Regarding claim 2, Haynes does not further specifically disclose the part support comprises a plurality of clamps.
Allen teaches a scanner system for lumber wherein a plurality of clamps (42, 44, Fig.2, Abstract) are used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Haynes in view of Allen to include a plurality of clamps in order to further secure the parts.
Regarding claim 3, Haynes, as modified above, further teaches at least some of the plurality of clamps are individually controllable (Allen Col.4, lines 26-50) to selectively engage a part for scanning.
Regarding claim 4, Haynes, as modified above, further teaches at least some of the plurality of clamps are individually controllable (Allen Col.4, lines 26-50) to selectively move each clamp toward or away from the part.
Regarding claim 5, Haynes, as modified above, further teaches at least some of the plurality of clamps are individually controllable (Allen Col.4, lines 26-50) to selectively clamp or unclamp the part.
Regarding claim 6, Haynes, as modified above, further teaches the part support comprises a plurality of part support modules, each part support module having one or more clamps of the plurality of clamps (Allen Fig.1).
Regarding claim 7, Haynes, as modified above, further discloses at least one rail segment positioned on each part support module (Col.5, lines 42-46).
Regarding claim 12, Haynes discloses a scanner system for parts (Fig.1), the scanner system comprising:
a plurality of scanners (46, 48, 50, 52) mounted to a measurement head;
a part support (12),
a conveyor mechanism (Col.5, lines 38-41) to change a relative location of the part support and the measurement head along a scan path during scanning (Col.5, lines 46-48); and
an alignment artifact (56) located along the scan path (Fig.1).
Haynes does not further specifically disclose the part support comprises a plurality of clamps, wherein at least some of the plurality of clamps are individually controllable to selectively engage or disengage from a part being scanned.
Allen teaches a scanner system for lumber wherein a plurality of clamps (42, 44, Fig.2, Abstract) are used, wherein the plurality of clamps are individually controllable (Col.4, lines 26-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Haynes in view of Allen to include a plurality of clamps in order to further secure the parts.
Regarding claim 13, Haynes, as modified above, further discloses a controller configured to selectively engage or disengage each individually controllable clamp (Col.4, lines 26-50) of the plurality of clamps based at least on a measurement plan.
Regarding claim 14, Haynes, as modified above, further discloses the measurement plan comprises selectively disengaging one or more clamps of the plurality of individually controllable clamps, performing a first scan using the plurality of scanners, selectively engaging the one or more individually controllable clamps, and performing a second scan (Col.7, lines32+).
Regarding claim 15, Haynes, as modified above, further discloses at least some of the plurality of clamps are individually controllable (Col.4, lines 26-50) to selectively move each clamp toward or away from the part.
Regarding claim 16, Haynes, as modified above, further discloses at least some of the plurality of clamps are individually controllable (Col.4, lines 26-50) to selectively clamp or unclamp the part.
Regarding claim 17, Haynes, as modified above, further teaches the part support further comprises a plurality of part support modules, each part support module comprising one or more clamps of the plurality of clamps (Allen Fig.1).
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes (US 10,591,420) in view of Allen (US 4,462,443), as applied above and further in view of Gong et al (US Pub App 2020/0164510).
Regarding claim 8, Haynes, as modified above, does not further specifically disclose the at least one rail segment extends beyond an edge of a body of the part support module and over a body of an adjacent part support module.
Gong teaches a system for loading cargo wherein a loading robot comprises a gantry robot manipulator, configured to load one or more pieces of cargo into a vehicle, twin rails run the length of the loading robot with a gantry robot manipulator mounted between the rails. The rails extend beyond the front of the loading robot so that the robot may position itself over a designated area to be loaded and lower the cargo into its proper placement (Para.29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Haynes, as modified above, further in view of Gong to have at least one rail segment extends beyond an edge of a body of the part support module and over a body of an adjacent part support module in order to extend and increase the placement area.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes (US 10,591,420) in view of Fujihara et al (US Pub App 2017/0057751).
Regarding claim 9, Haynes does not further specifically disclose the conveyor mechanism comprises a precision encoder to determine the relative location of the measurement head along the scan path during scanning, though such an element would be intrinsic to the system.
Fujihara teaches an article sorting apparatus with a conveyance path, a loading device, a positioning device, a sorting unit and a control device wherein a driving unit determines the stopping position of an article in cooperation with a motor, a high-precision encoder, or the like to realize precise positional control by the motor (Para.105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Haynes, as modified above, in view of Fujihara to include a precision encoder to determine the relative location of the measurement head along the scan path in order to increase the accuracy of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 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.
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed invention as set forth in claim 10 and subsequent dependent claims. The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious a safety system, the safety system comprising one or more detectors to detect when a presence is within a protected space, and a controller configured to, when the presence is detected within the protected space, limit a clamp force of one or more clamps of the part support.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed invention as set forth in claim 18 and subsequent dependent claims. The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious a scanner system for parts, the scanner system comprising: a plurality of scanners mounted to a measurement head; a part support comprising a plurality of clamps; a conveyor mechanism to change a relative location of the part support and the measurement head along a scan path during scanning; an alignment artifact located along the scan path; one or more detectors to detect when a presence is within a protected space; and a controller configured to, when the presence is detected within the protected space, limit a clamp force of one or more clamps of the plurality of clamps.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li and Newberg further disclose elements of a scanner system for parts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY K ROMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached on 571-272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/ASHLEY K ROMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights