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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-17 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non Final Office Action on the on merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 5/6/2025 and 7/29/2026 have been acknowledged by the Office.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: control unit and registration unit in claims 9 and 16.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, see general-purpose computer and processor in P [0025] and FIG. 3 for the control unit and registration unit.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9, 11-13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oba et al., hereinafter Oba (Document ID: US 20220134577 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Oba teaches a control method and transportation device for controlling, using an image captured by an imaging unit (camera 31), transportation of an object to a target position by a first migration body (articulated robot), the control method comprising the steps of:
searching for a feature portion indicating a reference position different from the target position using the imaging unit (see at least P [0081]-[0082] which begin to describe “compensation of image capturing pose in actual operation”, as well as FIG. 8 and 9. An autonomously guided vehicle “is positioned with low accuracy in actual operation” while a camera 31 searches for the identification figure indicating a reference position different from the target position);
performing approaching control to cause the imaging unit to relatively approach the feature portion when it is determined that the feature portion has been found (see at least P [0089] “Subsequently, the automatic-operation control unit 47 shifts the position of the camera 31 to a camera position” that approaches the identification figure in response to finding the feature and determining it is not yet in an allowable range of positioning);
causing the imaging unit having been caused to relatively approach the feature portion by the approaching control to acquire a first image in which the feature portion is imaged (see at least P [0090]: “and then causes the camera 31 to capture an image of the identification figure”); and
causing the first migration body to transport the object to the target position based on the first image (see at least FIG. 13 wherein the workpiece as an object is properly aligned, and P [0111] which explains that the robot is used after alignment to attach and remove a workpiece based on the first image).
Regarding claim 9 specifically, Oba teaches
a control unit (controller 40)
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Oba teaches the control method according to claim 1, the transportation device according to claim 9, and Oba further teaches
the feature portion includes a first mark provided to indicate the reference position (see at least P [0009]: “a visual target as a calibration marker”).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Oba teaches the control method according to claim 1, the transportation device according to claim 9, and Oba further teaches
the feature portion includes a location in an operation device for an operation that uses the object (see at least P [0130]-[0131]: “move the acting part from the current position of the acting part to a preset position of the target object or a preset position to which the target object is to be transported.”, wherein “an internal structure of the machine tool is used instead of the identification figure to identify the position of the camera”).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Oba teaches the control method according to claim 1, the transportation device according to claim 9, and Oba further teaches
the imaging unit is provided on the first migration body (see at least FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Oba teaches the transportation device according to claim 9, and Oba further teaches an operation system (system 1) comprising:
the transportation device according to claim 9; and
an operation device for an operation that uses the object transported by the transportation device (machine tool 10).
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba in view of Takahashi et al., hereinafter Takahashi (Document ID: US 20160349741 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Oba teaches the control method according to claim 1, the transportation device according to claim 9, and Oba further teaches in P [0063] that the identification feature is a “matrix structure having a plurality of pixels arranged two-dimensionally.” Oba even teaches known methods of using two calibration markers in P [0005]. Oba is not limited to this AR marker, but does not explicitly teach that
the feature portion includes a plurality of elements distinguishable from each other.
Instead, Takahashi, whose invention pertains to a robot relative positioning system, teaches in at least P [0023] and FIG. 1 the use of “a plurality of markers 28 and 30” to calibrate robot position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robot calibration system with a camera and a marker of Oba with the plurality of distinguishable markers of Takahashi in order to execute a design choice to increase the number of markers for increased relative position measurement precision as in P [0032] of Takahashi.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba in view of Hashimoto et al., hereinafter Hashimoto (Document ID: US 20220355466 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Oba teaches the control method according to claim 1, the transportation device according to claim 9, and Oba further teaches in P [0040] that any implementation of the articulated robot is possible, as long as the robot uses a camera with arms and joint units. But Oba thus does not explicitly teach that
the imaging unit is provided on a second migration body different from the first migration body.
Instead, Hashimoto, whose invention pertains to a robot article handling process, teaches in at least P [0065] and FIG. 2 a dual arm robotic system wherein an imaging unit is provided on a second migration body different from a first migration body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic arm that works with a camera for positioning of Oba with the dual arm robotic system of Hashimoto in order to execute a design choice for known methods of robotic control that use multiple articulated arms for different functionalities while relying on an imaging system.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Oba teaches the control method according to claim 6, the transportation device according to claim 14, and in view of the modification, Oba further teaches
wherein a main body portion that holds the first migration body and the second migration body is configured to be moved relative to the target position (Oba teaches that the robotic arm is mounted on an automatic guided vehicle 35, and in P [0064] the automatic guided vehicle is moved to an operation position relative to the identification figure to reach an approximate location).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba in view of Onuma et al., hereinafter Onuma (Document ID: US 20190351547 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Oba teaches the control method according to claim 1, the transportation device according to claim 9, and Oba further teaches in P [0056] the use of an “identification figure image storage 45” as a “functional unit that stores therein images of the identification figure”, as well as the ability to iterate the image capturing process in FIG. 14 for brining the robot to the desired position. Oba does not explicitly teach
in a registration process of registering position information indicating a relative positional relation between the target position and the reference position, a second mark for indicating the target position is provided at the target position,
the control method further comprising the steps of:
causing the imaging unit to acquire a second image in which the second mark and the feature portion are imaged; and
specifying the position information based on the second image and registering the position information.
Instead, Onuma, whose invention pertains to robotic object handling, teaches in at least P [0040] that after initially detecting a target from image data, “the hand unit 140 is moved near the detected fork 901, and the image data is obtained again from the hand camera 141 to search for another marker 902 proximate to the fork 901.” From here the robot can perform transport operations after specifying position information based on the second image and registering that information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging and marker positioning system of Oba with the ability to use a secondary marker after getting close to the target of Onuma in order to use a specific marker to convey position and operation information as in P [0042] of Onuma.
Regarding claim 16 specifically, Oba further teaches
the transportation device further comprising a registration unit (identification figure image storage 45)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 20060106497 A1
Invention pertains to a wafer conveyance process with positioning control.
Document ID: US 20140088762 A1
Invention pertains to image based relative motion and precise positioning.
Document ID: US 20210025692 A1
Invention pertains to a supplementary system for use with a robot to determine relative positioning.
Document ID: US 20220105641 A1
Invention pertains to a belt conveyor calibration method by use of a marker.
Document ID: US 20190080471 A
Invention pertains to a camera positioning and control unit for a robotic manipulator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights