DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments and remarks, filed on 3/30/2026, has been entered. The claim amendments do not overcome the previous prior art rejection, and the previous prior art rejection is modified to address the claim amendments.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3, and 5-21 are pending and being examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 repeats the same limitation “wherein the pre-defined condition comprises that the detected multidimensional-force signal profile deviates from the multidimensional-force signal pattern” in lines 15-16 and 17-18. Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “an artificial intelligence unit…” in claims 5 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification discusses the artificial intelligence unit in para [0052] of the instant specification. The artificial intelligence unit is defined as being comprised in the signal-processing unit 6 (interpreted as the controller/processor). The artificial intelligence unit can allow for a fast and/or precise determination if a pre-defined condition is satisfied. The examiner interprets the artificial intelligence unit as being a processor/controller as the processor/controller is capable of performing the intended function.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 3, 5-21 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the sample container transport system performing an action based on whether the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies or deviates from the pre-defined condition, wherein upon determining that the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies the pre-defined condition, the sample container transport system performing an action based on whether the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies the pre-defined condition” in lines 18-24. The limitation is unclear as to what action the sample container transport system is performing. First, the limitation states a condition “wherein the sample container transport system performing an action based on whether the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies or deviates from the pre-defined condition”. The following limitation is dependent on whether the condition is satisfied “wherein upon determining that the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies the pre-defined condition”. The last limitation restates the first limitation “the sample container transport system performing an action based on whether the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies the pre-defined condition” without the “deviating”. The last limitation is unclear as to whether the Applicant is claiming that the sample container transport system performs the action because the pre-defined condition was satisfied or if the Applicant is intending to claim an entirely different condition. Further, it is unclear as to what happens “upon determining” that the pre-defined condition was satisfied. For purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the repeated limitation intends for the action to occur because the condition is satisified/met. Claims 3 and 5-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the sample container transport system performing an action based on” in lines 18-19 and “the sample container transport system performing an action based on” in lines 22-23. The limitation is unclear as to whether Applicant is claiming an additional/different action to occur when the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies the pre-defined condition or if the Applicant is claiming the action occurs because the condition is met. For purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the repeated limitation intends for the action to occur because the condition is met. Claims 3 and 5-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “moving a sample container” in the preamble. Claim 7 is directed to a method that is dependent upon claim 1. Thus, the limitation is unclear if the Applicant is claiming a separate sample container for “the sample containers” which are gripped by the gripper recited in claim 1, line 3. Specifically, is the Applicant claiming an entirely different set of containers from the previously recited limitation? If not, the limitation “the sample container” in lines 3, 6, and 17 need to appropriate corrections. For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets “the sample container” to be “the sample containers” recited in claim 1 to be consistent with the amended limitation in claim 7. Claims 8-15 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 7.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a pre-defined multidimensional-force signal pattern” in line 7. Claim 7 is dependent upon claim 1 which recites the limitation. Thus, the limitation is unclear if Applicant is claiming the same pre-defined multidimensional-force signal pattern or a different pre-defined multidimensional-force signal pattern. For purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets that the limitations are the same as claim 7 is dependent upon claim 1. Claims 8-15 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 7.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a pre-defined condition” in lines 10-11. Claim 7 is dependent upon claim 1 which recites the limitation. Thus, the limitation is unclear if Applicant is claiming the same pre-defined condition or a different pre-defined condition. For purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets that the limitations are the same as claim 7 is dependent upon claim 1. Claims 8-15 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 7.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a multidimensional-force signal pattern” in line 13. Claim 7 is dependent upon claim 1 which recites the limitation. Thus, the limitation is unclear if Applicant is claiming the same multidimensional-force signal pattern or a different multidimensional-force signal pattern. For purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets that the limitations are the same as claim 7 is dependent upon claim 1. Claims 8-15 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 7.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “an action” in line 14. Claim 7 is dependent upon claim 1 which recites the limitation. Thus, the limitation is unclear if Applicant is claiming the same action or a different action. For purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets that the limitations are the same as claim 7 is dependent upon claim 1. Claims 8-15 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 7.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “in response the system” in line 3. The limitation is unclear as to which system the Applicant is referring to. Specifically, claim 1 which claim 20 is dependent upon teaches “the sample container transport system” and the “in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) laboratory system” in the preamble of claim 1. Thus, the limitation is unclear as to which of the systems is described in claim 20. For purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets that the Applicant is referring to the sample container transport system.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the sample container transport system performing an action based on whether the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies or deviates from the pre- defined multidimensional-force signal pattern, and upon determining whether the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies or deviates from the pre-defined multidimensional-force signal pattern, the sample container transport system performing an action based on whether the detected multidimensional- force signal satisfies or deviates from the pre-defined multidimensional-force signal pattern” in lines 15-22. The limitation is unclear as to what action the sample container transport system is performing. First, the limitation states a condition “wherein the sample container transport system performing an action based on whether the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies or deviates from the pre-defined condition”. The following limitation is dependent on whether the condition is satisfied “upon determining that the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies or deviates from the pre-defined condition”. The last limitation restates the first limitation “the sample container transport system performing an action based on whether the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies or deviates from the pre-defined condition”. The last limitation is unclear as to whether the Applicant is claiming that the sample container transport system performs the action because the pre-defined condition was satisfied or if the Applicant is intending to claim an entirely different condition. Further, it is unclear as to what happens “upon determining” that the pre-defined condition was satisfied or deviates. For purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the repeated limitation intends for the action to occur regardless of the pre-defined condition being met.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the sample container transport system performing an action” in line 15 and “the sample container transport system performing an action” in line 20. The limitation is unclear as to whether Applicant is claiming an additional/different action to occur when the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies the pre-defined condition or if the Applicant is claiming the action occurs because the condition is met. For purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the repeated limitation intends for the action to occur because the condition is met or not.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bingham et al (US 20190176326 A1; hereinafter “Bingham”; already of record on IDS filed 8/4/2021) in view of Monnich (EP 3444077 A1; hereinafter “Monnich”; attached) in view of Umeno et al (US 20140106386 A1; hereinafter “Umeno”; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Bingham teaches a transport system (Bingham; Abstract) comprising a gripping apparatus (Bingham; Fig. 2; para [32, 127]; a robotic gripper having one or more digits that can be actuated to change their shape, thereby allowing the robotic gripper to interact with the environment… the gripping device as an end effector), a robotic movement apparatus moving the gripping apparatus in multiple directions (Bingham; Fig. 2; para [74, 127]; the robot may include a robot arm), a force sensor detecting a signal indicative of forces (Bingham; Fig. 2; para [61, 64]; The sensor(s) 112 may include one or more force sensors…the robotic system 100 may include one or more force sensors on an arm, leg, hand, foot, or digit to measure the load on the actuators that move one or more members of the arm, leg, hand, foot, or digit); and a signal-processing unit (Bingham; Fig. 1; para [51]; the robotic system 100 may include processor(s) 102, data storage 104, and controller(s) 108, which together may be part of a control system 118).
Bingham does not teach a multidimensional-force sensor detecting a multidimensional-force signal indicative of forces in multiple directions, wherein the multidimensional-force signal is indicative of at least two forces selected from three translation dimensions and three rotation dimensions.
However, Monnich teaches an analogous art of a robotic arm (Monnich; Abstract) comprising a multidimensional-force sensor detecting a multidimensional-force signal indicative of forces in multiple directions acting on the sample container gripped by the gripping apparatus (Monnich; Fig. 1; para [26]; The end effector 11 is connected to the arm 9 via a robot flange. Arranged in or at this robot flange is a 6-DOF force sensor 12 which can measure forces acting in six different spatial directions), wherein the multidimensional-force signal is indicative of at least two forces selected from three translation dimensions and three rotation dimensions (Monnich; para [10]; the measured force is measured using a 6-degrees-of-freedom (6-DOF) force sensor attached to or integrated into the robot flange). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have modified the force sensor of Bingham to be the multidimensional-force sensor as taught by Monnich, because Monnich teaches only a single force sensor is required for the assembly which measures forces in any spatial direction and reduces the complexity of the required cabling or wiring for the robot as a whole (Monnich; para [10]).
Modified Bingham does not teach transport system for moving sample containers in an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) laboratory system comprising the gripping apparatus gripping sample containers.
However, Umeno teaches an analogous art of a sample container transport system for moving sample containers in an IVD laboratory system1 (Umeno; Abstract; para [85]; liquid processing system…the robot 40 may be relegated the actions of removing the microtubes 19 from a sack in which they are Supplied in bulk, and setting in the tube rack 24) comprising: a gripping apparatus gripping sample containers (Umeno; Fig. 2; para [180]; the pair of bits 64 provided to the robot hands 60 may grip a microtube 19 with three ways of holding). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the transport system of modified Bingham to be used in the IVD system as taught by Umeno as this is a known and suitable arrangement for transport systems in the art. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B). Finally, one would have a reasonable expectation of success by substituting the transport system of modified Bingham to be used in the IVD system as Umeno teaches this arrangement is a known and suitable arrangement in the art. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A). The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the sample container transport system, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Bingham and the sample container transport system of modified Bingham is capable of “moving sample containers in an IVD laboratory system”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed sample container transport system is not differentiated from the sample container transport system of modified Bingham (see MPEP §2114).
Thus, modified Bingham teaches the signal-processing unit processing the multidimensional-force signal (Bingham; para [51]; a control system 118; Monnich; para [32]; The measured force value or values are transmitted in real time from the 6-DOF force sensor 12 to the data processing device 3 which receives them through an input interface 16), the signal-processing unit deriving a pre-defined multidimensional-force signal pattern from recordings of multidimensional-force signals profiles of moving sample containers using the sample container transport system (Bingham; para [62, 76]; The sensor(s) 112 may provide sensor data to the processor(s) 102 (perhaps by way of data 107) to allow for interaction of the robotic system 100 with its environment; Monnich; para [32, 33]; the 6-DOF force sensor 12 measures the force or forces affecting the robot 2 at the end effector 11. This measurement can be carried out continuously as is presently indicated by a loop 21. The measured force value or values are transmitted in real time from the 6-DOF force sensor 12 to the data processing device 3 which receives them through an input interface 16. In a process step S3 the received measured values are processed by a processing unit (CPU) 17 of the data processing device 3), the signal-processing unit determining if a detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies a pre-defined condition, wherein the pre-defined condition comprises that the detected multidimensional-force signal profile deviates from the multidimensional-force signal pattern (Bingham; para [63]; The data provided by the sensor(s) 112 may enable the control system 118 to determine errors in operation as well as monitor overall operation of components of the robotic system 100), wherein the sample container transport system performing an action based on whether the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies or deviates from the pre-defined condition, wherein upon determining that the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies the pre-defined condition, the sample container transport system is configured to perform performing an action based on whether the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies the pre-defined condition (Bingham; para [124]; PCB 700 may interface with a sensor board that services a force-torque sensor on a wrist that is coupled to the palm 802 of the gripper 800. The wrist may be configured to move the palm 802 and/or gripper 800 in one or more degrees of freedom. As an example, the force-torque sensor may be configured to measure forces and torques on the wrist in six degrees of freedom. Data from the force-torque sensor may be used to learn information about grasp quality or information about an object being grasped; Bingham teaches that the action of grasping the sample container occurs even if the initial grasp fails because adjustments are made based on the data). Further, Bingham teaches that data can be stored by teaching the robot as discussed in paragraph 76. The transport system of Bingham is modified to teach the multidimensional-force signal as taught by Monnich, and modified Bingham teaches the transport system performing the action whether the error occurs or not. Therefore, the limitations are met because the Applicant does not specify the action that occurs when the signal satisfies/deviates from the pre-defined condition. Specifically, any action such as the arm moving would still satisfy the pre-defined condition as the control system recognizes errors during operation.
Regarding claim 3, modified Bingham teaches the sample container transport system according to claim 1 (the force sensor of Bingham is modified to teach the multidimensional-force sensor as taught by Monnich), wherein the multidimensional-force sensor is arranged at an intersection of the robotic movement apparatus and the gripping apparatus (Monnich; para [10]; a 6-degrees-of-freedom (6-DOF) force sensor attached to or integrated into the robot flange).
Regarding claim 5, modified Bingham teaches the sample container transport system according to claim 1 (the force sensor of Bingham is modified to teach the multidimensional-force sensor as taught by Monnich), wherein the the sample container transport system comprises an artificial intelligence unit for determining if the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies the pre-defined condition (Bingham; para [48]; the object-in-hand classifier may be a machine learning model trained based on results from the robotic gripping device used by the robot and/or similar robotic gripping devices used by the robot or different robots. The machine learning model may also be trained by simulated grasping events using a digital representation of the gripper in software; Monnich; para [6]; The measured values or data can be provided to a data processing device, which computes the at least one external moment, the positional correction factor, and the current position of the end effector).
Regarding claim 6, modified Bingham teaches the sample container transport system according to claim 1, wherein the sample container transport system comprises a position sensor that is designed for detecting a position signal that is indicative of a position of the gripping apparatus and/or of a sample container gripped by the gripping apparatus (Bingham; para [64]; As another example, the robotic system 100 may use one or more position sensors to sense the position of the actuators of the robotic system. For instance, such position sensors may sense states of extension, retraction, positioning, or rotation of the actuators on arms, legs, hands, feet, digits, or end effectors).
Regarding claim 7, modified Bingham teaches a method for using the sample container transport system according to claim 1 (the transport system of modified Bingham is modified to be substituted into the IVD system as discussed above in claim 1) for moving the sample container (Umeno; para [158, 159]), the method comprising the following steps:
moving the sample container by gripping the sample container using the gripping apparatus and by moving the gripping apparatus (Bingham; para [155]; a control system of a robot may identify an object in the environment for the gripper to pick up based on sensor data from one or more sensors remote from the gripper and/or on the gripper; Umeno; Fig. 17; para [107]; the robot 40 grips the outer perimeter face of the lid of a lidded container 26 in which the cell recovery liquid is stored, by the claw portions 71 of the pair of bits 64. Further, the robot 40 moves the second robot hand 60R to the placement table 27A and places the lid of the lidded container 26 on the placement table 27A);
detecting a multidimensional-force signal indicative of forces in multiple directions acting on the sample container while being moved (Monnich; para [10]; the measured force is measured using a 6-degrees-of-freedom (6-DOF) force sensor attached to or integrated into the robot flange; Umeno; para [107]); and
deriving a pre-defined multidimensional-force signal pattern from recording of multidimensional-force signals profiles of moving sample containers using the sample container transport system (Bingham; para [62, 76]; The sensor(s) 112 may provide sensor data to the processor(s) 102 (perhaps by way of data 107) to allow for interaction of the robotic system 100 with its environment; Monnich; para [32, 33]; the 6-DOF force sensor 12 measures the force or forces affecting the robot 2 at the end effector 11. This measurement can be carried out continuously as is presently indicated by a loop 21. The measured force value or values are transmitted in real time from the 6-DOF force sensor 12 to the data processing device 3 which receives them through an input interface 16. In a process step S3 the received measured values are processed by a processing unit (CPU) 17 of the data processing device 3),
determining if the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies a pre-defined condition (Bingham; para [63]; The data provided by the sensor(s) 112 may enable the control system 118 to determine errors in operation as well as monitor overall operation of components of the robotic system 100);
wherein the pre-defined condition comprises that the detected multidimensional-force signal profile deviates from a multidimensional-force signal pattern (Bingham; para [63]; cited above as the pre-defined condition is interpreted as the error),
wherein the sample container transport system is configured to perform an action if it is determined that the detected force signal satisfies the pre-defined condition, wherein the action comprises adjusting the moving of the sample container (Bingham; para [124]; PCB 700 may interface with a sensor board that services a force-torque sensor on a wrist that is coupled to the palm 802 of the gripper 800. The wrist may be configured to move the palm 802 and/or gripper 800 in one or more degrees of freedom. As an example, the force-torque sensor may be configured to measure forces and torques on the wrist in six degrees of freedom. Data from the force-torque sensor may be used to learn information about grasp quality or information about an object being grasped; Bingham teaches that the action of grasping the sample container occurs even if the initial grasp fails because adjustments are made based on the data).
Regarding claim 8, modified Bingham teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the pre-defined condition comprises that a one-dimensional parameter of the multidimensional-force signal exceeds a pre-defined threshold (Bingham; para [165]; a training example in this case may include at least two different modalities of sensor data from at least one non-contact sensor on the gripper, and the two categories may correspond to grasp success and grasp failure; Monnich; para [32, 33]; the 6-DOF force sensor 12 measures the force or forces affecting the robot 2 at the end effector 11). The examiner interprets the pre-defined condition to be the condition in which there is a error.
Regarding claim 9, modified Bingham teaches the method according to claim 8 (the force sensor of Bingham is modified to be the multidimension-force sensor as taught by Monnich discussed above in claim 1), wherein the one-dimensional parameter is a combination of force signals in two or more directions (Monnich; para [32, 33]; the 6-DOF force sensor 12 measures the force or forces affecting the robot 2 at the end effector 11).
Regarding claim 10, modified Bingham teaches the method according to claim 7 (the force sensor of Umeno is modified to be the multidimension-force sensor as taught by Bingham discussed above in claim 1), wherein the step of determining if the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies a pre-defined condition comprises using an artificial intelligence (Bingham; para [48]; the object-in-hand classifier may be a machine learning model trained based on results from the robotic gripping device used by the robot and/or similar robotic gripping devices used by the robot or different robots. The machine learning model may also be trained by simulated grasping events using a digital representation of the gripper in software; Monnich; para [6]; The measured values or data can be provided to a data processing device, which computes the at least one external moment, the positional correction factor, and the current position of the end effector). Examiner notes that the artificial intelligence unit as stated above under the 112(f) interpretation is comprised by the controller, thus modified Bingham teaches the claimed limitation as Bingham teaches the multidimensional-force signal by the multidimensional-force sensor discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, modified Bingham teaches the method according to claim 7 (the force sensor of Umeno is modified to be the multidimension-force sensor as taught by Bingham discussed above in claim 1), wherein the multidimensional-force signal comprises a position signal indicative of a position of the gripping apparatus and/or of a sample container gripped by the gripping apparatus at which the multidimensional force signal was detected (Bingham; para [98]; robotic gripping device may also include one or more sensors configured to detect the rotation, position); the pre-defined condition comprises a position condition; the step of detecting a multidimensional-force signal indicative of forces in multiple directions acting on the sample container while being moved comprises detecting the position signal; and the step of determining if the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies pre-defined condition comprises determining if the detected position signal satisfies the position condition (Bingham; para [64]; As another example, the robotic system 100 may use one or more position sensors to sense the position of the actuators of the robotic system. For instance, such position sensors may sense states of extension, retraction, positioning, or rotation of the actuators on arms, legs, hands, feet, digits, or end effectors). The examiner interprets the pre-defined condition of modified Bingham to be a condition in which the object/container is grasped, thus the one-dimensional parameter is the direction in which the grippers grasp the object. As seen in Fig. 17 of Umeno, the position condition is interpreted as the position where the container is being grasped, thus the condition is met when the container is picked up.
Regarding claim 12, modified Bingham teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the pre-defined condition depends on a translation force in a non-vertical direction and/or on a rotation force (Monnich; para [32, 33]; the 6-DOF force sensor 12 measures the force or forces affecting the robot 2 at the end effector 11).
Regarding claim 13, modified Bingham teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the method further comprises the step of performing a pre-defined action if it is determined that the detected force signal satisfies the pre-defined condition (Umeno; Fig. 17; para [107]; the robot 40 grips the outer perimeter face of the lid of a lidded container 26 in which the cell recovery liquid is stored, by the claw portions 71 of the pair of bits 64. Further, the robot 40 moves the second robot hand 60R to the placement table 27A and places the lid of the lidded container 26 on the placement table 27A). The examiner interprets the pre-defined condition of modified Bingham to be a condition in which the object/container is grasped, thus the pre-defined action is interpreted as lifting of the object/container upon being grasped.
Regarding claim 14, modified Bingham teaches the method according to claim 7, the steps of moving a reference sample container by gripping the reference sample container using the gripping apparatus and by moving the gripping apparatus; detecting and recording a profile of a multidimensional force signal indicative of forces in multiple directions that act on the reference sample container while being moved and/or parameters derived therefrom; and defining a condition for a detected multidimensional-force signal using the recorded profile, the condition thereby becoming a pre-defined condition. (Bingham; para [62, 76, 77]; The sensor(s) 112 may provide sensor data to the processor(s) 102 (perhaps by way of data 107) to allow for interaction of the robotic system 100 with its environment…the user may guide the robotic arm 200 towards grasping onto an object and then moving the object from a first location to a second location. As the user guides the robotic arm 200 during teach mode, the system may obtain and record data related to the movement such that the robotic arm 200 may be configured to independently carry out the task at a future time during independent operation). The Examiner notes that modified Bingham teaches the claim limitation as Bingham teaches training the robot to move sample containers which is modified and taught by Umeno discussed above in claim 1. Thus, the sample container that is used during the teaching mode is interpreted as “the reference sample container”.
Regarding claim 15, modified Bingham teaches the method according to claim 11 wherein the step of detecting and recording a profile of a multidimensional force signal indicative of forces in multiple directions that act on the reference sample container while being moved; comprises detecting and recording the position signal; and the step of defining a condition for a detected multidimensional-force signal using the recorded profile, the condition thereby becoming a pre-defined condition comprises defining a position condition of the pre-defined condition (Bingham; para [62]; The sensor(s) 112 may monitor the environment in real time, and detect obstacles, elements of the terrain, weather conditions, temperature, and/or other aspects of the environment. In another example, sensor(s) 112 may capture data corresponding to one or more characteristics of a target or identified object, such as a size, shape, profile, structure, or orientation of the object), comprises detecting and recording the position signal; and the step of defining a condition for a detected multidimensional-force signal using the recorded profile, the condition thereby becoming a pre-defined condition comprises defining a position condition of the pre-defined condition (Bingham; para [64]; The data provided by the sensor(s) 112 may enable the control system 118 to determine errors in operation as well as monitor overall operation of components of the robotic system 100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Umeno to comprise the step of creating a recorded profiles as taught by Bingham, because Bingham teaches that the profiles prevent errors during operation (Bingham; para [63]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Bingham teaches the sample container transport system according to claim 1, wherein the multidimensional-force signal is indicative of each of the three translation dimensions and the three rotation dimensions (Monnich; para [32, 33]; the 6-DOF force sensor 12 measures the force or forces affecting the robot 2 at the end effector 11. This measurement can be carried out continuously as is presently indicated by a loop 21. The measured force value or values are transmitted in real time from the 6-DOF force sensor 12 to the data processing device 3 which receives them through an input interface 16. In a process step S3 the received measured values are processed by a processing unit (CPU) 17 of the data processing device 3).
Regarding claim 17, modified Bingham teaches the sample container transport system according to claim 1 (the force sensor of Bingham is modified to teach the multidimensional-force sensor as taught by Monnich), wherein the signal processing unit processes the multidimensional-force signal to derive at least one one-dimensional parameter (Bingham; para [124]; PCB 700 may interface with a sensor board that services a force-torque sensor on a wrist that is coupled to the palm 802 of the gripper 800. The wrist may be configured to move the palm 802 and/or gripper 800 in one or more degrees of freedom; Monnich; para [32, 33]; the 6-DOF force sensor 12 measures the force or forces affecting the robot 2 at the end effector 11).
Regarding claim 18, modified Bingham teaches the sample container transport system according to claim 17 (the force sensor of Bingham is modified to teach the multidimensional-force sensor as taught by Monnich), wherein the signal processing unit processes the multidimensional-force signal to derive at least two one-dimensional parameters (Bingham; para [124]; PCB 700 may interface with a sensor board that services a force-torque sensor on a wrist that is coupled to the palm 802 of the gripper 800. The wrist may be configured to move the palm 802 and/or gripper 800 in one or more degrees of freedom; Monnich; para [32, 33]; the 6-DOF force sensor 12 measures the force or forces affecting the robot 2 at the end effector 11).
Regarding claim 19, modified Bingham teaches the sample container transport system according to claim 18 (the force sensor of Bingham is modified to teach the multidimensional-force sensor as taught by Monnich), wherein the signal processing unit processes the multidimensional-force signal to derive each of three translation dimensions and three rotation dimensions (Bingham; para [124]; the force-torque sensor may be configured to measure forces and torques on the wrist in six degrees of freedom; Monnich; para [32, 33]; the 6-DOF force sensor 12 measures the force or forces affecting the robot 2 at the end effector 11).
Regarding claim 20, modified Bingham teaches the sample container transport system according to claim 1 (the force sensor of Bingham is modified to teach the multidimensional-force sensor as taught by Monnich), wherein the detected signal deviates from the detected multidimensional-force signal pattern, and in response the system performs the action of adjusting the moving of the sample containers (Bingham; para [63, 181]; The data provided by the sensor(s) 112 may enable the control system 118 to determine errors in operation as well as monitor overall operation of components of the robotic system 100…In such cases, robot behavior may be adjusted to compensate (e.g., by increasing torque to try to prevent the object from slipping).
Regarding claim 21, Bingham teaches a transport system (Bingham; Abstract) comprising a gripping apparatus (Bingham; Fig. 2; para [32, 127]; a robotic gripper having one or more digits that can be actuated to change their shape, thereby allowing the robotic gripper to interact with the environment… the gripping device as an end effector), a robotic movement apparatus moving the gripping apparatus in multiple directions (Bingham; Fig. 2; para [74, 127]; the robot may include a robot arm), a force sensor detecting a signal indicative of forces (Bingham; Fig. 2; para [61, 64]; The sensor(s) 112 may include one or more force sensors…the robotic system 100 may include one or more force sensors on an arm, leg, hand, foot, or digit to measure the load on the actuators that move one or more members of the arm, leg, hand, foot, or digit); and a signal-processing unit (Bingham; Fig. 1; para [51]; the robotic system 100 may include processor(s) 102, data storage 104, and controller(s) 108, which together may be part of a control system 118).
Bingham does not teach a multidimensional-force sensor detecting a multidimensional-force signal indicative of forces in multiple directions, wherein the multidimensional-force signal is indicative of at least two forces selected from three translation dimensions and three rotation dimensions.
However, Monnich teaches an analogous art of a robotic arm (Monnich; Abstract) comprising a multidimensional-force sensor detecting a multidimensional-force signal indicative of forces in multiple directions acting on the sample container gripped by the gripping apparatus (Monnich; Fig. 1; para [26]; The end effector 11 is connected to the arm 9 via a robot flange. Arranged in or at this robot flange is a 6-DOF force sensor 12 which can measure forces acting in six different spatial directions), wherein the multidimensional-force signal is indicative of at least two forces selected from three translation dimensions and three rotation dimensions (Monnich; para [10]; the measured force is measured using a 6-degrees-of-freedom (6-DOF) force sensor attached to or integrated into the robot flange). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have modified the force sensor of Bingham to be the multidimensional-force sensor as taught by Monnich, because Monnich teaches only a single force sensor is required for the assembly which measures forces in any spatial direction and reduces the complexity of the required cabling or wiring for the robot as a whole (Monnich; para [10]).
Modified Bingham does not teach transport system for moving sample containers in an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) laboratory system comprising the gripping apparatus gripping sample containers.
However, Umeno teaches an analogous art of a sample container transport system for moving sample containers in an IVD laboratory system1 (Umeno; Abstract; para [85]; liquid processing system…the robot 40 may be relegated the actions of removing the microtubes 19 from a sack in which they are Supplied in bulk, and setting in the tube rack 24) comprising: a gripping apparatus gripping sample containers (Umeno; Fig. 2; para [180]; the pair of bits 64 provided to the robot hands 60 may grip a microtube 19 with three ways of holding). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the transport system of modified Bingham to be used in the IVD system as taught by Umeno as this is a known and suitable arrangement for transport systems in the art. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B). Finally, one would have a reasonable expectation of success by substituting the transport system of modified Bingham to be used in the IVD system as Umeno teaches this arrangement is a known and suitable arrangement in the art. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A). The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the sample container transport system, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Bingham and the sample container transport system of modified Bingham is capable of “moving sample containers in an IVD laboratory system”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed sample container transport system is not differentiated from the sample container transport system of modified Bingham (see MPEP §2114).
Thus, modified Bingham teaches the signal-processing unit processing the multidimensional-force signal (Bingham; para [51]; a control system 118; Monnich; para [32]; The measured force value or values are transmitted in real time from the 6-DOF force sensor 12 to the data processing device 3 which receives them through an input interface 16), the signal-processing unit deriving a pre-defined multidimensional-force signal pattern from recordings of multidimensional-force signals profiles of moving sample containers using the sample container transport system (Bingham; para [62, 76]; The sensor(s) 112 may provide sensor data to the processor(s) 102 (perhaps by way of data 107) to allow for interaction of the robotic system 100 with its environment; Monnich; para [32, 33]; the 6-DOF force sensor 12 measures the force or forces affecting the robot 2 at the end effector 11. This measurement can be carried out continuously as is presently indicated by a loop 21. The measured force value or values are transmitted in real time from the 6-DOF force sensor 12 to the data processing device 3 which receives them through an input interface 16. In a process step S3 the received measured values are processed by a processing unit (CPU) 17 of the data processing device 3), the signal-processing unit determining whether the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies or deviates from the pre-defined multidimensional-force signal pattern (Bingham; para [63]; The data provided by the sensor(s) 112 may enable the control system 118 to determine errors in operation as well as monitor overall operation of components of the robotic system 100), wherein the sample container transport system performing an action based on whether the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies or deviates from the pre-defined multidimensional-force signal pattern, and upon determining whether the detected multidimensional-force signal satisfies or deviates from the pre-defined multidimensional-force signal pattern, the sample container transport system performing an action based on whether the detected multidimensional- force signal satisfies or deviates from the pre-defined multidimensional-force signal pattern (Bingham; para [124]; PCB 700 may interface with a sensor board that services a force-torque sensor on a wrist that is coupled to the palm 802 of the gripper 800. The wrist may be configured to move the palm 802 and/or gripper 800 in one or more degrees of freedom. As an example, the force-torque sensor may be configured to measure forces and torques on the wrist in six degrees of freedom. Data from the force-torque sensor may be used to learn information about grasp quality or information about an object being grasped; Bingham teaches that the action of grasping the sample container occurs even if the initial grasp fails because adjustments are made based on the data). Further, Bingham teaches that data can be stored by teaching the robot as discussed in paragraph 76. The transport system of Bingham is modified to teach the multidimensional-force signal as taught by Monnich, and modified Bingham teaches the transport system performing the action whether the error occurs or not. Therefore, the limitations are met because the Applicant does not specify the action that occurs when the signal satisfies/deviates from the pre-defined condition. Specifically, any action such as the arm moving would still satisfy the pre-defined condition as the control system recognizes errors during operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered, and some of the arguments are not found to be persuasive. The non-persuasive arguments are addressed below.
In the applicant's arguments, on pp 8-9, the applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose the amended claim limitation. Specifically, the Applicant argues that the claim is amended to recite the functional limitations to be disclosed by the signal-processing unit. The Applicant’s arguments regarding Umeno failing to teach limitations not directed to the function of the apparatus are found to be persuasive. However, the Examiner applies a new prior art to teach the claim amendments. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Bingham to teach the controller limitations as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Austin Q Le whose telephone number is (571)272-7556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/A.Q.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights