DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 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 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.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claims recite “the detect” without antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1, 8-11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan-Shafique et al., US 2009/0060278 in view of Kanno et al., US 2016/0151916.
1 and 11. Hassan teaches a system for detecting an object present in a scene, comprising:
a memory and processor storing and performing instructions [paras. 24-26, 64]
a camera unit configured to obtain at least one image camera 104, Fig. 1, para. 19, 21, 30]; and
a server [e.g. computer 172, Fig. 1, paras. 8, 24, 27, 38] configured to detect from the at least one image a first state in which an object is on a surface or a second state in which no object is on the surface, obtain information, when the first state is detected, on a first time during which the first state continues, detect that a falling object is on the surface when the first time is more than a first reference time, and detect that no falling object is on the surface when the first time is the first reference time or less [system detects a state where an object is (or is not) placed in a scene (e.g. a table); when that state is detected, the system determines the time that the object remains; when that time exceeds a predetermined (reference) time, the object is classified as stationary, paras. 34, 46, 47].
Hassan is silent on the time period being a time of repeated operations, and does not teach a table per se.
Kanno teaches a camera unit configured to obtain at least one image of a surface of a table [conveyor 12 is a surface holding objects, i.e. a moving table, Figs. 1, 2, 12, 13, paras. 36-38], wherein the first reference time is a cycle time during which a robot device repeatedly performs certain operations [images are captured during cycle time (e.g. period T1) of objects moving through field of view as system conveys objects repeatedly, paras. 45-50].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, using the cycle time period of Kanno in order to ensure that each robotic cycle is performed correctly without the intrusion of foreign objects. Any shorter time period would not ensure the quality of an entire cycle, and any longer time wastes computing resources and may result in an inability to distinguish between cycles to determine if a particular cycle has quality control issues.
8 and 18. Kanno teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one image includes a first image of a first area of the surface of the table and a second image of a second area of the surface of the table [cameras 16A and 16B image different areas of conveyor (moving table) Figs. 2, 4, 13, paras. 57, 65, 79].
9 and 19. Kanno teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the camera unit includes a first camera configured to obtain the first image, and a second camera configured to obtain the second image [cameras 16A and 16B image different areas of conveyor (moving table) Figs. 2, 4, 13, paras. 57, 65, 79].
10 and 20. Hassan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the server is further configured to output information on a presence of the falling object to a user based on a result value generated in the detect [detection method? See 112 rejection above] of the server [system detects a state where an object is (or is not) placed in a scene (e.g. a table); when that state is detected, the system determines the time that the object remains; when that time exceeds a predetermined (reference) time, the object is classified as stationary; this is outputting information based on a detection result value; paras. 34, 46, 47].
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan and Kanno as cited above in view of Huang et al., US 2006/0210175.
3 and 13. The above references are silent on determining a time of a second state, i.e. time of an object not being present. Huang teaches an object detection system wherein the server is further configured to obtain information, when the second state (no object present) is detected, on a second time during which the second state continues [timer tracks how long an object is not present, Figs. 3, 5, paras. 21, 23].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, tracking the absence or removal of an object to determine if any foreign object that impeded operation is no longer interfering. In this case the manufacturing operation can continue without costly interruption.
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan and Kanno as cited above in view of Campbell et al., US 2023/0143836.
5 and 15. The above references are silent on a training a learning algorithm. Campbell teaches a system for monitoring surfaces and objects in a specialized work environment, wherein the server is further configured to learn from a plurality of images of the surface of the table in advance by using an unsupervised learning algorithm [surface of table is imaged and images are used to train a machine learning model, Figs. 1,3, paras. 70, 71, 83, 84, 93, 110, 111].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize images of a repeated process to automatically train the system to recognize object and surfaces in the future. This obviates the need to manually program an algorithm, saving time and increasing accuracy.
6 and 16. Campbell teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the plurality of images are images of the table in a state in which no object is present on the table [e.g. image 300 showing no objects on the table, Fig. 3, para. 84].
7 and 17. Campbell teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the server is further configured to detect a presence or an absence of the object based on a learning value output by an unsupervised learning algorithm [algorithm identifies presence (or absence) of objects, e.g. hand or device 350, Figs. 1, 3, 7, paras. 84, 97].
Relevant Prior Art
Other prior art considered relevant but not cited in a rejection includes Mello et al., US 2020/0334899, [Figs. 1, 4B, 4C, 4E].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights