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 .
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.
Response to Remarks/Arguments/Amendment
The examiner received amendments to the claims and arguments dated 05 January 2025 in response to the Non-Final Rejection office action dated 11 September 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding rejections”, “prior office action”, or the like). No new matter was entered.
Regarding the domestic benefit and effective filing date of the claims, the examiner notes that the problematic language has been removed from the independent claims and once again has support from the provisional application 63/162,875 (priority document). Thus, the examiner will continue to utilize the date of 18 March 2021 for prior art purposes.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the examiner first recognizes that applicant has removed the words “dynamically” and “while avoiding the application of excessive clamping force” from the independent claims. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for this terminology are withdrawn. However, regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for “substantially parallel” persists. Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for "substantially parallel structures", the examiner acknowledges the arguments provided on page [7] of the arguments, but does not find them persuasive. For clarity, the dictionary-provided definition for "parallel" (in the manner presented) is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
338
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Paragraphs [0068-0069] and Figures [8A-8B] correspond to structures that appear to be parallel (but the word "parallel" is not used in the specification). Paragraphs [0070-0071] and Figures [9A-9B] directly contradict with the word "parallel" (if this structure is indeed claimed), as they are explicitly disclosed to be "tilted inward to facilitate grasping in a clamping mode of operation" (paragraph [0070]) and an explicit tie between this structure and a definition for “parallel” is not provided. Thus, for prior art purposes, the examiner cannot reasonably determine what angle may be "substantially parallel" in order for prior art to apply or not apply, and notes then that (for prior art purposes) any angle may be "substantially" parallel in this case. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under this rationale, as the claims continue to recite relative terminology that introduces ambiguity.
Regarding arguments associated with prior art rejections (35 U.S.C. 103), the arguments are moot due to amendments made to the claims. The examiner has located prior art which reads upon the claim set; new grounds for rejection (necessitated by amendment) are provided below.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 05 January 2026. Claims 1-3, 6-18, and 20 are pending and rejected as noted below. Claims 1, 16, and 20 are independent claims. Claims 4-5, 19, and 21-22 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 18 December 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1, 16, and 20 (all independent claims, and by extension, all pending claims) 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.
Claims 1, 16, and 20 state "substantially parallel panel structures" in reference to the clamping structure of the end effector. The examiner notes that while MPEP 2173.05(b) states that "The use of relative terminology in claim language, including terms of degree, does not automatically render the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph." However, 2173.05(b).III.D. indicates that "Substantially" is a term of approximation/relative term. The specification provides insufficient clarity; paragraphs [0068-0069] and Figures [8A-8B] correspond to structures that appear to be parallel (but the word "parallel" is not used in the specification). Paragraphs [0070-0071] and Figures [9A-9B] directly contradict with the word "parallel", as they are explicitly disclosed to be "tilted inward to facilitate grasping in a clamping mode of operation" (paragraph [0070]). Thus, for prior art purposes, the examiner cannot determine what angle may be "substantially parallel" in order for prior art to apply or not apply, and notes then that (for prior art purposes) any angle may be "substantially" parallel in this case. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under this rationale. When viewed both individually and as a whole, the examiner ultimately determined that while the intent of the language is to describe two parallel flat plates to apply gripping force as shown, for instance, in Figures [4B] and [4D] of the instant application, by merely referring to the clamping structure as "substantially parallel panel structures", the examiner is unsure of the metes and bounds of the claim language. The term substantially applies ambiguity; if any panel of a gripper had an angle difference between the structures differing by a small degree (say, just a single degree), would they still read upon the claim language? At what point are they no longer "substantially" parallel? The examiner recommends removal of "substantially" to remove the noted ambiguity.
Therefore, the examiner notes that this phrase is indefinite and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above.
As all independent claims (1, 16, 20) are rejected and none of the dependent claims resolve the deficiency, all pending claims (1-3, 6-18, 20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Prior Art Note
The examiner notes that primary reference US 2023/0182313 A1 (Nielsen et al.) is referenced in the corresponding prior art rejections given below. The priority document (EP 20167919) serves as the basis for rejection and was attached with a previous office action, however reference is made instead to US disclosure US 2023/0182313 A1 in order to provide a more accurate translation and paragraph numbers, simplifying reference callouts. In the corresponding claim rejections, while base document EP 20167919 serves as the priority document, reference will be made to US 2023/0182313 A1 instead for ease.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al. (US 2023/0182313 A1; priority date of 03 April 2020, hereinafter Nielsen) in view of Thome et al. (WO 2011144876 A1; published 24 November 2011, referencing the English translation provided with this office action, hereinafter Thome) in further view of Sterling et al. (WO 2020/051620 A1; a PDF filed with this office action, hereinafter Sterling) (in the case of claims 1 and 16) and Nielsen in view of Thome in view of Sterling in further view of Payton et al. (US 2022/0118629 A1; filed 03 Oct 2019, hereinafter Payton) (in the case of claim 20).
Regarding independent claims 1 (system), 16 (method), and 20 (apparatus): Nielsen discloses A system, comprising: a communication interface; and a processor coupled to the communication interface and configured to: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0091] and Figure [5], Nielsen discloses a robot system comprising a control system (CS, analogous to a controller) with a processor arranged to execute a control algorithm and is in communication with a number of components, such as a robot and cameras/sensors) / A method, comprising: (per claim 16) (Paragraph [0176] and Claim [26], Nielsen discloses a method) / A [computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising computer instructions] for: (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0091], Nielsen discloses a processor system arranged to execute a control algorithm (control algorithm analogous to a computer program))
determine a grasp strategy to grasp an object in a workspace, (per claim 1) / determining a grasp strategy for a robot to grasp an object in a workspace, (per claims 16 and 20) (Paragraph [0016, 0019, 0031-0034, 0038-0039, 0076, 0087, 0100-0107, 0112, 0129, 0142] and Figures [2, 5, and 8], Nielsen discloses a robot end effector that is used for pick and place that is adjustable by utilizing adjustable length arms that contain suction devices and a grip element (such as a finger-type gripping element). Nielsen refers to the configurations of the end effector (through adjustments of the length of arms, for instance) as gripping configurations. Throughout the disclosure, the examiner notes that a “gripping configuration” is analogous to “grasp strategy” in plain meaning and as the instant application defines “grasp strategy” as using one or more modes of an end effector to grasp the object (Paragraph [0034]), and the plurality of configurations constitute “modes” since the instant application defines “multi-mode” as simply having a plurality of operating modes (Paragraph [0033]). As such, Nielsen discloses gripping configurations (grasp strategies) to grasp an object in a workspace)
wherein the determined grasp strategy is associated with a corresponding one of a plurality of grasping modes of operation of a multi-mode robotic end effector, (per claims 1, 16, and 20) (Paragraph [0016, 0019, 0026, 0028, 0031-0034, 0038, 0076, 0087, 0093, 0100-0107, 0112, 0129, 0142], As noted above, the examiner is considering the plurality of grasping configurations (denoting, for example, the quadrangle sizes to accommodate various workpieces) to be analogous to that of a grasp strategy. Additionally, the examiner is considering the plurality of different arm reaches and application of different grasping means (the four suction members, finger type grip element, center fixed suction member, etc.) constitutes various “modes”. As such, Nielsen discloses a robot system that determines a gripping configuration (grasp strategy) associated with a mode of operation of the end effector)
wherein the plurality of grasping modes of operation includes at least a first mode of operation associated with a first configuration of the end effector, in which structures configured to be used to grasp the object using suction are positioned for use and […] (per claims 1, 16, and 20) (Paragraph [0076], Nielsen discloses the use of suction cup grippers to grasp an object, wherein the positioning of the grippers may be adjusted based on the properties of the object to be picked)
[…] send to a robot with which the multi-mode robotic end effector is associated a command to grasp the object using the multi-mode robotic end effector in the grasping mode of operation associated with the determined grasp strategy; (per claim 1) / […] sending to a robot with which the multi-mode robotic end effector is associated a command to grasp the object using the multi-mode robotic end effector in the grasping mode of operation associated with the determined grasp strategy; (per claims 16 and 20) (Paragraph [0016, 0019, 0026, 0028, 0031-0034, 0038, 0076, 0087, 0093, 0100-0107, 0112, 0129, 0130-0182], Nielsen discloses that the determined gripping configuration is sent to the robot to perform the grasping/pick and place action)
wherein the multi-mode robotic end effector is configured to respond to the command at least in part by transitioning into a configuration associated with the grasping mode of operation associated with the determined grasp strategy, […] (per claims 1, 16, and 20) (Paragraph [0016, 0019, 0031-0034, 0038, 0076, 0087, 0100-0107, 0112, 0129, 0142] and Figures [2, 5, and 8], Nielsen discloses that the arms adjust their lengths (transition into a configuration) based on the determined gripping configuration (necessitated by object properties))
While Nielsen discloses the use of a clamp style gripper (Paragraph [0142] and Claim [3]), Nielsen does not explicitly disclose the use of a clamping-type gripper used alone as a mode of operation.
However, Thome, in a similar field of endeavor of pick and place robot control, teaches …a second mode of operation associated with a second configuration of the end effector, in which structures configured to be used to grasp the object by clamping the object between substantially parallel panel structures comprising the end effector are used and said structures configured to be used to grasp the object using suction are not used; and… (per claims 1, 16, and 20) (Paragraph [0051] and Figure [1, 3-5], As noted, “substantially parallel” is not particularly limiting as it does not disclose the absolute of “parallel” nor provide an angle range in the case of allowable variation, thus any two surfaces may be broadly interpreted as “substantially parallel” as the criteria for otherwise is not provided. Thome teaches a multi-mode end effector in which suction or clamping means may be employed, the clamping means are shown in the Figures as being “substantially parallel”, and a mode in which only the clamping gripper is used is taught),
…including by retracting said structures configured to be used to grasp the object using suction to a stowed position between said substantially parallel panel structures; and… (per claims 1, 16, and 20) (Paragraph [0031, 0038, 0044, 0046-0048, 0051] and Figure [1, 3-5], As noted, “substantially parallel” is not particularly limiting as it does not disclose the absolute of “parallel” nor provide an angle range, thus any two surfaces may be broadly interpreted as “substantially parallel” as the criteria for otherwise is not provided. Thome teaches a multi-mode end effector in which suction or clamping means may be employed, the clamping means are shown in the Figures as being “substantially parallel”, and that the suction means may retract to a stowed position. Regarding “between”, the suction assembly is disclosed to contain a cross member that rests between the jaws of the clamp when in the stowed position)
Nielsen and Thome are in a similar field of endeavor of robot control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Nielsen with the retractable suction assembly of Thome in order to provide a more flexible solution for manipulating objects with the added benefit of fitting into tight spaces (Thome, Paragraph [0014, 0016, 0048]).
Further, regarding the application of a clamping force at sufficient force, Nielsen discloses the desire to transfer objects without damaging them (Paragraph [0097]), implicitly teaching that (as the items are gripped) the force exerted is high enough to grip but does not explicitly state this.
However, Sterling, in a similar field of endeavor of robot control, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine and cause the robot to apply a clamping force determined by the processor, the clamping force being calculated to ensure a sufficient force of friction between said clamping structures comprising the end effector and the object to enable the object to be moved without slippage. (per claim 1) / further comprising determining and causing the robot to apply a clamping force determined by a processor, the clamping force being calculated to ensure a sufficient force of friction between said clamping structures comprising the end effector and the object to enable the object to be moved without slippage. (per claim 16) / further comprising computer instructions to determine and cause the robot to apply a clamping force determined by the processor, the clamping force being calculated to ensure a sufficient force of friction between said clamping structures comprising the end effector and the object to enable the object to be moved without slippage. (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0020-0021, 0024, 0028, 0052], Sterling teaches a gripper for gripping a plurality of objects, wherein the pressure (force over an area) applied to an object is sensed in order to ensure that the robot does not apply too low pressure (resulting in dropping the object) or too high pressure (resulting in damaging the object). As the sensing is done on a per-object basis in real time (the sensor senses pressure applied to the surface of the object), this is “dynamic”. The manipulator arm is controlled by a controller and control unit)
Nielsen and Sterling are in a similar field of endeavor of robot control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Nielsen to explicitly state that the objects should be grasped at a right amount to permit transfer without damaging the object, as this is the typical goal of an object transfer apparatus. Sterling is merely presented as a disclosure that explicitly states that the force applied to the object is enough to grip (and not drop), but not so high as to damage the object (Paragraph [0028]). Nielsen explicitly discloses a desire to not damage the objects (Paragraph [0097]), implicitly stating that the application of force is not high enough to damage the objects, and further discloses the gripping of objects (Paragraph [0076]). Thus, the examiner submits that Nielsen implicitly discloses the claimed subject matter, but relies on the teachings of Sterling as a reference that explicitly discloses the claimed subject matter. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to clarify that the force is “sufficient” such that the object is neither dropped nor damaged (Sterling, Paragraph [0028]).
Finally, regarding the clarification in claim 20 that a computer readable storage medium houses instructions to perform a method, Payton, in a similar field of endeavor of robot control, teaches computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising computer instructions (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0041, 0043], Payton teaches that the disclosure may be presented in non-transient signals stored in computer memory such as a physical component (CD-ROM, for instance))
Nielsen and Payton are in a similar field of endeavor of robot control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Nielsen to have incorporated the method disclosed into a non-transitory memory as this is considered an obvious variant of the method of Nielsen; it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have implemented the method of Nielsen with a non-transitory memory (as taught by Payton) in order to perform the method on a computing device (Payton, Paragraph [0043]). As the disclosure of Nielsen is that of a robotic/technological disclosure, implementing the control method using a computer storage/memory component is implicit, well-known, routine, and conventional. Payton is merely used as a reference to show that it is well known in the art to implement control methods on a computer readable medium.
In summary, Nielsen serves as the basis for prior art which discloses an adaptive multi-mode end effector for transferring articles and explicitly states the ability to use both suction and clamp-style end effectors. The difference in the disclosure of Nielsen and the claimed invention of the instant application independent claims then primarily lies in the particular features of a clamp-style gripper, application of force, and use of a computer readable storage medium. The teachings of Thome were relied upon (with a reasonable motivation to combine) to show that the features of the clamp-style gripper were known, the teachings of Sterling were relied upon to clarify an implicit teaching within Nielsen, and the teachings of Payton were relied upon to show that the use of a computer-readable storage medium to house computer executed instructions is old and well known. Therefore, the claims are rendered obvious by the combination of Nielsen, Thome, and Sterling (in the case of claims 1 and 16) and Nielsen, Thome, Sterling, and Payton (in the case of claim 20).
Regarding claims 2 and 17: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Nielsen, Thome, and Sterling. Nielsen further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive via the communication interface sensor data associated with the object in the workspace; and (per claim 2) / further comprising receiving via a communication interface sensor data associated with the object in the workspace; and (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0099-0107, 0121, 0129] and Figure [5], Nielsen discloses that the control system (CS, which includes a processor that is in communication with other components of the system, as noted in the above claim 1 discussion) is configured to receive images (from a camera, which is considered a sensor, as described in instant application paragraph [0078]) from a camera in communication with the control system to identify information associated with the object (such as shape, size, orientation, etc.))
determine the grasp strategy to grasp the object based at least in part on the sensor data. (per claim 2) / determining the grasp strategy to grasp the object based at least in part on the sensor data. (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0099-0107, 0121, 0129] and Figure [5], Nielsen discloses that the gripping algorithm uses a plurality of inputs from the sensor in order to determine a gripping configuration)
Regarding claims 3 and 18: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over the combination of Nielsen, Thome, and Sterling. Nielsen further discloses wherein the processor is configured to use the sensor data to determine the grasp strategy at least in part by using the sensor data to determine an attribute of the object and using the attribute to determine the grasp strategy. (per claim 3) / wherein the grasp strategy is determined at least in part by using the sensor data to determine an attribute of the object and using the attribute to determine the grasp strategy. (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0099-0107, 0121, 0129] and Figure [5], Nielsen discloses that the gripping algorithm uses a plurality of inputs from the sensor in order to determine a gripping configuration. Further, the inputs include regularity of the surface of the object (surface roughness and surface curvature) and size of the object (considered attributes by instant application paragraph [0039]))
Regarding claim 6: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Nielsen, Thome, and Sterling. Nielsen further discloses wherein the processor is configured to use machine learning techniques to determine the grasp strategy. (Paragraph [0046, 0112-0114], Nielsen discloses that machine learning is utilized to allow the robot system to continue learning what gripping configurations result in successful pick and place operations for future use)
Regarding claim 8: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Nielsen, Thome, and Sterling. Nielsen further discloses wherein the determined grasp strategy is associated with a suction mode of operation of the end effector and the processor is configured to determine the determined grasp strategy at least in part based on an attribute of the object associated with the suction mode of operation. (Paragraph [0099-0107], Nielsen discloses a grasp strategy associated with the suction cups of the gripper based on an attribute of the object (such as shape and surface condition))
Regarding claim 9: Parent claim 8 is unpatentable over the combination of Nielsen, Thome, and Sterling. Nielsen further discloses wherein the attribute is associated with one or both of a weight of the object and a degree of regularity of a surface of the object to be grasped by suction. (Paragraph [0099-0107], The examiner notes that as the applicant as recited “one or both of” in the claim, only one (as “or” is stated) of the attributes listed is necessary to anticipate the claim. Nielsen discloses a grasp strategy associated with the suction cups of the gripper based on surface curvature and roughness (surface regularity))
Regarding claim 11: Parent claim 10 is unpatentable over the combination of Nielsen, Thome, and Sterling. Nielsen further discloses wherein the attribute is associated with one or both of a weight of the object and a degree of regularity of a surface of the object to be grasped. (Paragraph [0099-0107], The examiner notes that as the applicant as recited “one or both of” in the claim, only one (as “or” is stated) of the attributes listed is necessary to anticipate the claim. Nielsen discloses a grasp strategy associated with the suction cups of the gripper based on surface curvature and roughness (surface regularity))
Regarding claim 12: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Nielsen, Thome, and Sterling. Nielsen further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine the determined grasp strategy based at least in part on a cost associated with the determined grasp strategy. (Paragraph [0108, 0111], Cost is a term that may apply in a variety of ways; minimizing “cost” can mean lowering energy consumption, reducing number of robot movements, or reducing the time taken to perform an action, as some examples. As such, the examiner is using the disclosure of paragraph [0042] of the instant application to define cost as anything that impacts the overall time, energy, or resources needed to perform an action by the robot. As such, Nielsen discloses that the algorithm for gripper configuration management performs actions simultaneously to save time (and thus, determining grasp strategy/gripping configuration based at least in part on a cost/time savings))
Regarding claim 13: Parent claim 12 is unpatentable over the combination of Nielsen, Thome, and Sterling. Nielsen further discloses wherein the cost reflects a transition cost associated with placing the end effector in the grasping mode of operation associated with the determined grasp strategy. (Paragraph [0108, 0111], Nielsen discloses that transitioning the end effector to a desired state/gripper configuration simultaneously with movement to a desired target location saves time (cost). Thus, Nielsen discloses that the time saving is associated with movement of the end effector per the determined gripper configuration/grasp strategy)
Regarding claim 14: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Nielsen, Thome, and Sterling. Nielsen further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to send to the end effector, via the communication interface, a command to place the end effector in the grasping mode of operation associated with the determined grasp strategy. (Paragraph [0016, 0019, 0031-0034, 0038, 0076, 0087, 0100-0109, 0112, 0129, 0142] and Figures [2, 5, and 8], Nielsen discloses that the robot movement control algorithm (D-RM, a part of the control system CS) sends the control signals (C_RA) to the robot to control the movement of the robot)
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Thome in view of Sterling in further view of Ota et al. (US 2013/0184870 A1; hereinafter Ota).
Regarding claim 7: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Nielsen, Thome, and Sterling. Nielsen further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine the grasp strategy at least in part by determining a [set of available grasp strategies], (Paragraph [0099-0107], Nielsen discloses that a best match gripping configuration may be chosen, implying that other (non-best) matches may be available for a certain object grasping action)
Nielsen does not explicitly disclose assigning a score to a set of available grasp strategies.
However, Ota, in a similar field of endeavor of robot grasping methods, teaches a set of available grasp strategies (Paragraph [0053], Ota teaches identification of a plurality of grasp patterns) and
assigning a score to each of at least a subset of grasp strategies in the set, and selecting a selected grasp strategy based at least in part on the assigned scores. (Paragraph [0050-0053], Ota teaches assigning scores to grasping tasks selected and may choose a pattern that has the highest grasp quality score)
Nielsen and Ota are in a similar field of endeavor of robot grasping methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the multi-mode end effector control method as disclosed by Nielsen by utilizing a score-based system for selecting a gripping configuration as taught by Ota (Ota, Paragraph [0050-0053]), as Nielsen implicitly discloses that a plurality of gripping configurations may be generated. Nielsen, paragraph [0074] discloses that “Thereby the distance D1 between the suction cups M1, M2, is adjustable, and thus the gripper G can provide different gripping configurations to adjust for optimal gripping of objects of different sizes.” and in paragraph [0093] discloses “Optimal grip is important for the robot to allow handling of objects G_O at a high speed without losing grip of the object G_O…”. As the “optimal” grip is chosen, then it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that “sub-optimal” solutions exist as well. Further, with regards to the scoring system, Nielsen uses a scoring system to determine which object, among a plurality of detected objects, that the robot should attempt to grasp (Nielsen, Paragraphs [0041-0046, 0099-0107]). Thus, the concept of utilizing a scoring system (albeit for choice of an object to grasp rather than a grasping method) is also disclosed. Ota simply provides an explicit teaching of scoring grasping solutions in order to choose an “optimal” grasp. Both references desire the same benefit afforded by the instant application of lower operation costs through time savings (Ota, Paragraph [0035-0036] and Nielsen, Paragraph [0023, 0108, 0121]). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to utilize a known method of choosing a target action among a set of identified actions (scoring) as taught by Ota in the robot control method disclosed by Nielsen with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Nielsen, Thome, and Sterling. Nielsen does not explicitly disclose selecting a grasp strategy based on the current tool selected.
However, Ota, in a similar field of endeavor of robot grasping methods, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to select the determined grasp strategy based at least in part on a determination that the multi-mode robotic end effector is already in the grasping mode of operation associated with the determined grasp strategy. (Paragraph [0038-0039, 0050], Ota teaches that “the robot may cho[o]se the individual grasp pattern that is most closely aligned with the current position of its end effector…”, thus disclosing that the strategy is chosen based in part on the state of the end effector prior to picking up the object)
Nielsen and Ota are in a similar field of endeavor of robot grasping methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the multi-mode end effector control method as disclosed by Nielsen by further explicitly specifying that the gripping configuration is chosen based on the current state of the end effector (alluded to in Nielsen paragraph [0099] “1) A distance between the object and a current position of the gripper G…”) as taught by Ota, as they share the same goal of attempting to minimize cost by saving time (Ota, Paragraph [0035-0036] and Nielsen, Paragraph [0023, 0108, 0121]). By considering a gripping strategy based in part on the current state of the gripper, one could save time with performing grasping operations by preventing an unnecessary change of state prior to a grasping operation. As such, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing and would constitute a combination of known elements with a reasonable expectation of success in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Thome in view of Sterling in view of Payton.
Regarding claim 10: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Nielsen, Thome, and Sterling. Nielsen further discloses wherein the determined grasp strategy is associated with a [clamping] mode of operation of the end effector and the processor is configured to determine the determined grasp strategy at least in part based on an attribute of the object associated with the [clamping] mode of operation. (Paragraph [0099-0107], Nielsen discloses a grasp strategy associated with the suction cups of the gripper based on an attribute of the object (such as shape and surface condition))
Additionally or alternatively, Payton, in a similar field of endeavor of robot control, also teaches wherein the determined grasp strategy is associated with a clamping mode of operation of the end effector and the processor is configured to determine the determined grasp strategy at least in part based on an attribute of the object associated with the [clamping] mode of operation. (Paragraph [0057], As noted above, the mode of operation includes grasping the object with vacuum and then fingers. Payton discloses that the configuration of the end effector may be adjusted based on the object’s attributes such as size and shape)
Nielsen and Payton are in a similar field of endeavor of pick and place robot control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Nielsen to explicitly include a grasping means of operation as taught by Payton in order to provide a more flexible solution for manipulating objects of differing attributes (Payton, Paragraph [0004-009, 0057]). This constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658