Ex Parte SUZUKI et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 24, 2019

13829001 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/829,001 03/14/2013
78198 7590
Studebaker & Brackett PC
8255 Greensboro Drive
Suite 300
Tysons, VA 22102
05/29/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y asuhiro SUZUKI
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
006600-1 9557
EXAMINER
HUNTLEY, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2116
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
info@sbpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Y ASUHIRO SUZUKI and
Y ASUNORI NAITOH
Appeal2018-002878
Application 13/829,001 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-16, 19, and 20. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 3
1 Appellants identify Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha, as the real party
in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
2 Claims 2, 5, 17, and 18 have been cancelled. (App. Br. 13-14, 20 (Claims
App.).)
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed March 14, 2013,
the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed March 31, 2017, the Appeal
Brief ("App. Br.") filed August 30, 2017, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.")
mailed November 27, 2017, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed January
25, 2018.
Appeal2018-002878
Application 13/829,001
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a working apparatus including a control
portion, a head unit having a first imaging portion (e.g., a first camera), a
second imaging portion ( e.g., a second camera), and a working mechanism
portion (e.g., suction nozzles), wherein the control portion (1) calculates a
rotation angle in a horizontal plane of the head unit from displacement of the
center of the first imaging portion and displacement of the center of the
second imaging portion, and (2) corrects the center position of the working
mechanism portion based on (i) an amount of rotation-induced displacement
of the center of the working mechanism portion due to the rotation angle, (ii)
"a first amount of displacement in a first direction in the horizontal plane
being not induced by rotation of the center of the working mechanism
portion," and (iii) "a second amount of displacement in a second direction in
the horizontal plane being not induced by the rotation of the center of the
working mechanism portion when moving the head unit." (Spec. 3 7: 6-11;
Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A working apparatus for a component or a board,
compnsmg:
a head unit including a first imaging portion, a second
imaging portion, and a working mechanism portion only
arranged at one side region against a straight line passing through
a center of the first imaging portion and a center of the second
imaging portion in a plan view, wherein, theoretical position
coordinates of a center position of the working mechanism
portion are located at a first fixed distance in an X-axis direction
and a second fixed distance in a Y-axis direction away from
theoretical position coordinates of a center position of the first
2
Appeal2018-002878
Application 13/829,001
imaging portion, and wherein the X-axis direction and a Y-axis
direction are orthogonal to each other in a horizontal plane;
a control portion performing control of moving the head
unit along the X-axis direction and the Y-axis direction; and
a correction table to which the control portion refers for an
amount of displacement of actual position coordinates of the
center of the first imaging portion with respect to theoretical
position coordinates of the center of the first imaging portion and
an amount of displacement of actual position coordinates of the
center of the second imaging portion with respect to theoretical
position coordinates of the center of the second imaging portion
when moving the head unit in the horizontal plane, wherein
with respect to a straight line passing through the center of
the first imaging portion and the center of the second imaging
portion in a plan view, the working mechanism portion is only
arranged at the one side region, and both an optical axis of the
first imaging portion and an optical axis of the second imaging
portion are arranged along a Z-axis direction orthogonal to the
X-axis direction and the Y-axis direction,
the first imaging portion and the second imaging portion
are configured to acquire respective displacement of the center
of the first imaging portion and the second imaging portion with
respect to theoretical position coordinates of the center position
of the first imaging portion and the second imaging portion,
when the head unit moves in the horizontal plane,
the control portion is configured to perform control of:
calculating a rotation angle in the horizontal plane
of the head unit from displacement of the center of the first
imaging portion and displacement of the center of the
second imaging portion, and
correcting the center position of the working
mechanism portion on the basis of an amount of rotation-
induced displacement of a center of the working
mechanism portion due to the rotation angle, a first
amount of displacement of the center of the working
mechanism portion in the X-axis direction being induced
by parallel movement of the head unit, and a second
amount of displacement of the center of the working
mechanism portion in the Y-axis direction being induced
3
Appeal2018-002878
Application 13/829,001
by parallel movement of the head unit when moving the
head unit,
wherein the amount of rotation-induced
displacement includes a first amount of rotation-induced
displacement being an X-axis direction component of the
amount of rotation-induced displacement and a second
amount of rotation-induced displacement being a Y-axis
direction component of the amount of rotation-induced
displacement which are calculated on the basis of the
rotation angle, the first fixed distance, and the second fixed
distance relatively,
the control portion is configured to acquire the
displacement of the center of the first imaging portion, the
displacement of the center of the second imaging portion, the
first amount of displacement, and the second amount of
displacement on the basis of the correction table, and
the control portion is configured to perform control of
correcting the center position of the working mechanism portion
on the basis of:
a first correction amount in the X-axis direction of
the center position of the working mechanism portion
based on the first amount of rotation-induced displacement
and the first amount of displacement and
a second correction amount in the Y-axis direction
of the center position of the working mechanism portion
based on the second amount of rotation-induced
displacement and the second amount of displacement.
(App. Br. 12-21 (Claims App.).)
REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-13, 15, 16, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based on Okuda et al. (US 2008/0250636 Al, published
Oct. 16, 2008) ("Okuda") and Kido (WO 2012/026101 Al, published Mar.
1, 2012)4 ("Kido"). (Final Act. 4--33; Ans. 2.)
4 The Examiner cites to Kido's US equivalent (US 2013/0107033 Al;
4
Appeal2018-002878
Application 13/829,001
(2) Claims 14 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based
on Okuda, Kido, and Maenishi (US 2009/0000110 Al, published Jan. 1,
2009). (Final Act. 33-39; Ans. 2.)
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Okuda
discloses a control portion controlling a head unit ( component placing head
136 in Okuda's Figure 40, and head 236 in Okuda's Fig. 44) including first
and second imaging portions (Okuda's cameras 240 and 241, see Fig. 44)
and a working mechanism portion ( component suction nozzles 13 61, see
Fig. 40), the control portion correcting the center position of the working
mechanism portion on the basis of: an amount of rotation-induced
displacement due to a rotation angle, "a first amount of displacement of the
center of the working mechanism portion in the X-axis direction being
induced by parallel movement of the head unit," and "a second amount of
displacement of the center of the working mechanism portion in the Y-axis
direction being induced by parallel movement of the head unit when moving
the head unit" as claimed. (Ans. 3-5 (citing Okuda ,r,r 257,264, Figs. 40,
44, and 45); Final Act. 8-9 (citing Okuda ,r,r 97, 132, Figs. 34--35).)
Particularly, the Examiner finds "Okuda's device compensates/or parallel
deviations, as well as recognition errors and positioning errors, in similar
fashion to the claimed invention [of Appellants]" because "[Okuda's] device
corrects for offsets in placement of a glass board (' ~XA and ~YA shown in
Fig. 34 of Okuda are the amounts of parallel deviation of the glass
board'[)]." (Ans. 6-7, 9 (citing Okuda ,r,r 150-151, 153, Figs. 11, 14--15,
published May 2, 2013, to Kido) ("Kido US"). (See Ans. 2.)
5
Appeal2018-002878
Application 13/829,001
34, and 40).) The Examiner further finds Okuda corrects the center position
of the working mechanism on the basis of "a first correction amount in the
X-axis direction of the center position of the working mechanism portion
based on the first amount of rotation-induced displacement and the first
amount of displacement" and "a second correction amount in the Y-axis
direction of the center position of the working mechanism portion based on
the second amount of rotation-induced displacement and the second amount
of displacement" as recited in claim 1. (Ans. 4--7 (citing Okuda ,r,r 150-151,
264, Figs. 11, 40, and 45); Final Act. 10 (citing Okuda ,r,r 285-286).)
Particularly, the Examiner finds Okuda's device corrects "distortion of the
X-Y robot (i.e. rotation-induced displacement, cf. Okuda, fig. 40" and
"teach[es] correction of a rotation-induced displacement (e.g. ~e in figs. 14
and 15, i.e. based on the first/second amount of rotation-induced
displacement) as well as offsets in the X and Y directions (i.e. and the
first/second amount of displacement)." (Ans. 7.) We do not agree.
We agree with Appellants that Okuda does not correct the working
mechanism's center position (ii) "based on the first amount of rotation-
induced displacement and the first amount of displacement" and (iii) "based
on the second amount of rotation-induced displacement and the second
amount of displacement" wherein the "first amount of displacement of the
center of the working mechanism portion in the X-axis direction ... [is]
induced by parallel movement of the head unit" and the "second amount of
displacement of the center of the working mechanism portion in the Y-axis
direction ... [is] induced by parallel movement of the head unit when
moving the head unit" as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 9-10, 13 (Claim 1);
Reply Br. 2.)
6
Appeal2018-002878
Application 13/829,001
Rather, Okuda corrects the position of its component placing head
(136, 236) "on the basis of the amounts of parallel deviation ~XA and~ YA
of the glass board 200 and the inclination angle ~8g of the board 200"
because Okuda's amounts "~XA and~ YA[] of the reference mark from the
center position of the visual field of the board recognition camera 240 ...
are the amounts of parallel deviation of the glass board 200." (App. Br. 9
(citing Okuda ,r,r 97, 208-216, Figs. 34--35).) Thus, Okuda's amounts of
parallel deviation ~XA and ~YA of the glass board are neither amounts of
rotation-induced displacement nor first and second amounts of displacement
induced by parallel movement of the head unit when moving the head unit,
as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 1.) Okuda's glass board is
not a head unit but a "reference-mark-recognizing reference board" having
"reference marks 201 [ or 301] arranged at specified intervals on the glass
board"; and Okuda's ''parallel deviations" (cited at Ans. 7-9) refer to
deviations of the glass board from a conveyance direction of a board
conveyance unit. (See Okuda ,r,r 134, 147 ("it is difficult to hold the glass
board 200 by the conveyance table 165 completely parallel to the board
conveyance direction of the board conveyance unit 190, and a displacement
is occurring," and "[i]n order to correct the displacement when this glass
board is held, the reference marks 201 located at the lower left comer and
the upper right comer of the glass board 200 are first recognized as the
reference marks 201A and 201B" (emphasis omitted)), 153,209, 215-217,
263-264, Figs. 22 and 44.)
Thus, Okuda does not correct a center position of a head unit's
working mechanism based on first and second amounts of displacement "of
the center of the working mechanism portion in the X-axis direction [ and the
7
Appeal2018-002878
Application 13/829,001
Y-axis direction] being induced by parallel movement of the head unit ...
when moving the head unit" as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 13 (Claim 1)
(emphasis added).)
As Appellants further explain, Okuda corrects a working mechanism's
position "using [an] amount of displacement ~M being the one-direction (Y-
direction) component" but "Okuda does not disclose that the center position
of the working mechanism portion is corrected using the first amount of
rotation-induced displacement being the X-axis direction component and the
second amount of rotation-induced displacement being the Y-axis direction
component" as claim 1 recites. (App. Br. 10 ( citing Okuda Fig. 45)
(emphasis added).) Because "[Okuda's] working mechanism portion [236]
is arranged on the straight line passing through the centers of the first
imaging portion [240] and the second imaging portion [241] in a plan view,
as shown in Fig. 45 [and Fig. 44]," the movement of Okuda's working
mechanism is more constrained than the movement of Appellants' claimed
"working mechanism portion only arranged at one side region against a
straight line passing through a center of the first imaging portion and a
center of the second imaging portion in a plan view." (Reply Br. 1; see
Okuda ,r 260, Figs. 44--45; see also App. Br. 12 (Claim 1 reciting "a working
mechanism portion only arranged at one side region against a straight line
passing through a center of the first imaging portion and a center of the
second imaging portion in a plan view" such that "with respect to a straight
line passing through the center of the first imaging portion and the center of
the second imaging portion in a plan view, the working mechanism portion
is only arranged at the one side region").)
8
Appeal2018-002878
Application 13/829,001
That is, because the movement of Okuda' s working mechanism is
more constrained than the movement of Appellants' claimed working
mechanism, Okuda only corrects the mechanism's movement with respect to
one direction ( the direction between the glass board's reference marks 301-1
and 301-2 in Okuda's Fig. 45). (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 1-2.) Okuda
does not correct the working mechanism's movement with respect to two
directions (X-axis direction and Y-axis direction) that are orthogonal to
each other. Thus, Okuda does not teach or suggest correcting the center
position of the working mechanism portion on the basis of (i) "a first
correction amount in the X-axis direction of the center position of the
working mechanism portion based on the first amount of rotation-induced
displacement and the first amount of displacement" and (ii) "a second
correction amount in the Y-axis direction of the center position of the
working mechanism portion based on the second amount of rotation-induced
displacement and the second amount of displacement," as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of
Kido and Maenishi make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Okuda.
(App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2.) Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 3, 4,
and 6-15 dependent therefrom. We also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 16, argued for the same reasons as claim 1,
and claims 19 and 20 dependent therefrom. (App. Br. 8-10.)
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-16, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
9
Appeal2018-002878
Application 13/829,001
REVERSED
10