DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 1 - 24 are presented for examination. Claims 1 - 18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected.
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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1 - 6, 11, 13 - 16, 18, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diankov et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0170596 A1), hereinafter “Diankov”, and further in view of Balakirsky et al (“Using Simulation to Access the Effectiveness of Pallet Stacking Methods”), hereinafter “Balakirsky”.
As per claim 1, Diankov discloses:
a robotic system (Diankov, par [0024] discloses a system used to control robotic units and their interactions.)
comprising a memory configured to store estimated state information associated with a computer simulation of a robotic operation to stack a plurality of items on a pallet or other receptacle (Diankov, par [0035] discloses information of a state or condition as a physical property of the robotic system detected by sensors, with par [0042] adds storage devices storing data associated with the robotic system, and par [0090] discloses the packing simulation performed, including using the location of containers and plans to place objects on or in the container, along with identifying the objects to place in the container.)
one or more processors coupled to the memory (Diankov, par [0087] discloses processors executing instructions stored on the storage devices.)
configured to perform the computer simulation (Diankov, par [0090] discloses packing simulations performed using controllers of the system, with par [0040] providing clarification of the controller including at least one type of processor)
Diankov does not expressly disclose:
wherein the computer simulation is performed at least in part by combining geometric model data based on idealized simulated robotic placement of each item with programmatically generated noise data; and
the programmatically generated noise data reflects an estimation of the effect that one or more sources of noise in a real world physical workspace with which the computer simulation is associated would have on a real world state of one or both of the plurality of items and the pallet or other receptacle if the plurality of items were stacked on the pallet is or other receptacle as simulated in the computer simulation.
Balakirsky however discloses:
wherein the computer simulation is performed at least in part by combining geometric model data based on idealized simulated robotic placement of each item with programmatically generated noise data (Balakirsky, page 337, lines 3 - 9 discloses a simulation to simulate robotic arms stacking packages on a pallet, using a plan and motion planning algorithms, with page 343, lines 37 - 38 adds using geometry of the object and the location of where the object will be placed with regards to the plan to stack the packages, and page 346, lines 9 - 14 adds simulations performed in rounds using a simulation framework, with one round indicating an error (page 346, ln 23 - 27) and another round indicating a possible different error (page 347, ln 25).)
the programmatically generated noise data reflects an estimation of the effect that one or more sources of noise in a real world physical workspace with which the computer simulation is associated would have on a real world state of one or both of the plurality of items and the pallet or other receptacle if the plurality of items were stacked on the pallet is or other receptacle as simulated in the computer simulation (Balakirsky, page 346, lines 23 - 27 discloses the errors in one round regarding placement of packages in the simulation that would create issues regarding collisions in the real world and packages that would not actually be located on the pallet, and page 347, line 25 adds a pallet with too many packages stacked.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov with the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky. The motivation to do so would have been because Balakirsky discloses the benefit of a physics enabled simulator that allows studying of interlocking among hidden internal boxes and makes it possible to study metrics that cannot be determined by mere statistics (Balakirsky, page 336, Abstract, lines 10 - 12).
As per claim 23, Diankov discloses:
a method to control a robot (Diankov, par [0024] discloses a system used to control robotic units and their interactions.)
comprising storing estimated state information associated with a computer simulation of a robotic operation to stack a plurality of items on a pallet or other receptacle (Diankov, par [0035] discloses information of a state or condition as a physical property of the robotic system detected by sensors, with par [0042] adds storage devices storing data associated with the robotic system.)
performing, by one or more processors, the computer simulation (Diankov, par [0090] discloses packing simulations performed using controllers of the system, with par [0040] providing clarification of the controller including at least one type of processor.)
Diankov does not expressly disclose:
wherein the computer simulation is performed at least in part by combining geometric model data based on idealized simulated robotic placement of each item with programmatically generated noise data; and
the programmatically generated noise data reflects an estimation of the effect that one or more sources of noise in a real world physical workspace with which the computer simulation is associated would have on a real world state of one or both of the plurality of items and the pallet or other receptacle if the plurality of items were stacked on the pallet or other receptacle as simulated in the computer simulation.
Balakirsky however discloses:
wherein the computer simulation is performed at least in part by combining geometric model data based on idealized simulated robotic placement of each item with programmatically generated noise data (Balakirsky, page 337, lines 3 - 9 discloses a simulation to simulate robotic arms stacking packages on a pallet, using a plan and motion planning algorithms, with page 343, lines 37 - 38 adds using geometry of the object and the location of where the object will be placed with regards to the plan to stack the packages, and page 346, lines 9 - 14 adds simulations performed in rounds using a simulation framework, with one round indicating an error (page 346, ln 23 - 27) and another round indicating a possible different error (page 347, ln 25).)
the programmatically generated noise data reflects an estimation of the effect that one or more sources of noise in a real world physical workspace with which the computer simulation is associated would have on a real world state of one or both of the plurality of items and the pallet or other receptacle if the plurality of items were stacked on the pallet or other receptacle as simulated in the computer simulation (Balakirsky, page 346, lines 23 - 27 discloses the errors in one round regarding placement of packages in the simulation that would create issues regarding collisions in the real world and packages that would not actually be located on the pallet, and page 347, line 25 adds a pallet with too many packages stacked.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov with the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky. The motivation to do so would have been because Balakirsky discloses the benefit of a physics enabled simulator that allows studying of interlocking among hidden internal boxes and makes it possible to study metrics that cannot be determined by mere statistics (Balakirsky, page 336, Abstract, lines 10 - 12).
As per claim 24, Diankov discloses:
a computer program product to control a robot (Diankov, par [0087] discloses executing instructions from a storage device to operate a robotic system.)
the computer program product being embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions (Diankov, par [0041] discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium to store program instructions.)
for storing estimated state information associated with a computer simulation of a robotic operation to stack a plurality of items on a pallet or other receptacle (Diankov, par [0035] discloses information of a state or condition as a physical property of the robotic system detected by sensors, with par [0042] adds storage devices storing data associated with the robotic system.)
performing, by one or more processors, the computer simulation (Diankov, par [0090] discloses packing simulations performed using controllers of the system, with par [0040] providing clarification of the controller including at least one type of processor.)
Diankov does not expressly disclose:
wherein the computer simulation is performed at least in part by combining geometric model data based on idealized simulated robotic placement of each item with programmatically generated noise data; and
the programmatically generated noise data reflects an estimation of the effect that one or more sources of noise in a real world physical workspace with which the computer simulation is associated would have on a real world state of one or both of the plurality of items and the pallet or other receptacle if the plurality of items were stacked on the pallet or other receptacle as simulated in the computer simulation.
Balakirsky however discloses:
wherein the computer simulation is performed at least in part by combining geometric model data based on idealized simulated robotic placement of each item with programmatically generated noise data (Balakirsky, page 337, lines 3 - 9 discloses a simulation to simulate robotic arms stacking packages on a pallet, using a plan and motion planning algorithms, with page 343, lines 37 - 38 adds using geometry of the object and the location of where the object will be placed with regards to the plan to stack the packages, and page 346, lines 9 - 14 adds simulations performed in rounds using a simulation framework, with one round indicating an error (page 346, ln 23 - 27) and another round indicating a possible different error (page 347, ln 25).)
the programmatically generated noise data reflects an estimation of the effect that one or more sources of noise in a real world physical workspace with which the computer simulation is associated would have on a real world state of one or both of the plurality of items and the pallet or other receptacle if the plurality of items were stacked on the pallet or other receptacle as simulated in the computer simulation (Balakirsky, page 346, lines 23 - 27 discloses the errors in one round regarding placement of packages in the simulation that would create issues regarding collisions in the real world and packages that would not actually be located on the pallet, and page 347, line 25 adds a pallet with too many packages stacked.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov with the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky. The motivation to do so would have been because Balakirsky discloses the benefit of a physics enabled simulator that allows studying of interlocking among hidden internal boxes and makes it possible to study metrics that cannot be determined by mere statistics (Balakirsky, page 336, Abstract, lines 10 - 12).
For claim 2: The combination of Diankov and Balakirsky discloses claim 2: The robotic system of claim 1, wherein
the computer simulation is one of a plurality of computer simulations performed by the one or more processors (Balakirsky, page 346, lines 9 - 11 discloses different algorithms used in a round of simulations to build pallets, with page 346, lines 25 - 27 produced results in which packages were placed where collisions would occur, and page 347, line 25 adds a result in which too many packages were placed on a pallet.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov with the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky and the additional teaching of different simulations performed, with one involved the amount of packages and one involved the placement of packages, also found in Balakirsky. The motivation to do so would have been because Balakirsky discloses the benefit of a physics enabled simulator that allows studying of interlocking among hidden internal boxes and makes it possible to study metrics that cannot be determined by mere statistics (Balakirsky, page 336, Abstract, lines 10 - 12).
For claim 3: The combination of Diankov and Balakirsky discloses claim 3: The robotic system of claim 2, wherein
at least a plurality of the computer simulations run in parallel (Diankov, par [0193] discloses the steps performed can be performed in parallel.)
For claim 4: The combination of Diankov and Balakirsky discloses claim 4: The robotic system of claim 2, wherein
each of the plurality of computer simulations are based on a different planning algorithm (Balakirsky, page 346, lines 9 - 11 discloses different algorithms used in a round of simulations to build pallets.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov with the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky and the additional teaching of different algorithms used in simulations performed, also found in Balakirsky. The motivation to do so would have been because Balakirsky discloses the benefit of a physics enabled simulator that allows studying of interlocking among hidden internal boxes and makes it possible to study metrics that cannot be determined by mere statistics (Balakirsky, page 336, Abstract, lines 10 - 12).
For claim 5: The combination of Diankov and Balakirsky discloses claim 5: The robotic system of claim 2,
wherein each of the plurality of computer simulations are based on a different stacking algorithm (Balakirsky, page 346, lines 9 - 11 discloses different algorithms used in a round of simulations to build pallets, with page 346, lines 25 - 27 in which the packages were placed where collisions would occur, and page 347, line 25 in which too many packages were placed on a pallet.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov with the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky and the additional teaching of different simulations performed, with one involved the amount of packages and one involved the placement of packages, also found in Balakirsky. The motivation to do so would have been because Balakirsky discloses the benefit of a physics enabled simulator that allows studying of interlocking among hidden internal boxes and makes it possible to study metrics that cannot be determined by mere statistics (Balakirsky, page 336, Abstract, lines 10 - 12).
For claim 6: The combination of Diankov and Balakirsky discloses claim 6: The robotic system of claim 2, wherein
each of the plurality of computer simulations implement a same planning or stacking algorithm, and each of the plurality of simulations implement a different order or placement of items (Balakirsky, page 346, lines 25 - 27 through page 347, lines 1 - 4, in which placement of packages using different algorithms results in one pallet stacked with packages that would cause collisions, and packages stacked on a pallet that does not cause collisions.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov with the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky and the additional teaching of different algorithms performed to obtain different pallet package stacking results, also found in Balakirsky. The motivation to do so would have been because Balakirsky discloses the benefit of a physics enabled simulator that allows studying of interlocking among hidden internal boxes and makes it possible to study metrics that cannot be determined by mere statistics (Balakirsky, page 336, Abstract, lines 10 - 12).
For claim 11: The combination of Diankov and Balakirsky discloses claim 11: The robotic system of claim 1, wherein
the noise data reflects environmental conditions of a workspace comprising the plurality of items stacked on the pallet or other receptacle (Balakirsky, page 346, lines 25 - 27 discloses results of a simulation in which packages were placed where collisions would occur, and page 347, line 25 adds results of a simulation in which too many packages were placed on a pallet.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov with the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky and the additional teaching of different simulations performed, with one involved the amount of packages and one involved the placement of packages, also found in Balakirsky. The motivation to do so would have been because Balakirsky discloses the benefit of a physics enabled simulator that allows studying of interlocking among hidden internal boxes and makes it possible to study metrics that cannot be determined by mere statistics (Balakirsky, page 336, Abstract, lines 10 - 12).
For claim 13: The combination of Diankov and Balakirsky discloses claim 13: The robotic system of claim 1, wherein
the noise data reflects an error with respect to item position (Balakirsky, page 346, lines 25 - 27 discloses errors include the placement of packages that would result in collisions if the stacking plan were implemented in the real environment.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov with the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky and the additional teaching of the placement of packages that results in an error, also found in Balakirsky. The motivation to do so would have been because Balakirsky discloses the benefit of a physics enabled simulator that allows studying of interlocking among hidden internal boxes and makes it possible to study metrics that cannot be determined by mere statistics (Balakirsky, page 336, Abstract, lines 10 - 12).
For claim 14: The combination of Diankov and Balakirsky discloses claim 14: The robotic system of claim 13, wherein
the error with respect to item position is a deviation of a location of the item in a workspace relative to an expected location (Balakirsky, page 346, lines 25 - 27 discloses errors include the placement of packages that would result in a package suspended in mid-air and not located within the stacked packages.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov with the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky and the additional teaching of the placement of packages that results in an error, also found in Balakirsky. The motivation to do so would have been because Balakirsky discloses the benefit of a physics enabled simulator that allows studying of interlocking among hidden internal boxes and makes it possible to study metrics that cannot be determined by mere statistics (Balakirsky, page 336, Abstract, lines 10 - 12).
For claim 15: The combination of Diankov and Balakirksky discloses claim 15: The robotic system of claim 14, wherein
the deviation is caused by the item being pushed as a robotic arm places another item on a stack of items on the pallet or other receptacle (Balakirksky page 344, lines 18 – 19 discloses using USARSim for evaluating a pallet building process, and page 344, lines 32 - 36 discloses the USARSim simulation providing observations including a robot knocking over boxes trying to reach a side of the pallet being built, because of the arrangement of boxes, and page 344, lines 46 – 47 adds additional teaching of objects knocked off by other objects being placed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov with the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky, and the additional teaching of objects knocked off a pallet by an object being arranged by a robot, also found in Balakirksky. The motivation to do so would have been because Balakirsky discloses the benefit of a physics enabled simulator that allows studying of interlocking among hidden internal boxes and makes it possible to study metrics that cannot be determined by mere statistics (Balakirsky, page 336, Abstract, lines 10 - 12).
For claim 16: The combination of Diankov and Balakirsky discloses claim 16. The robotic system of claim 1, wherein
the noise data is introduced based at least in part on: generating a geometric pallet and a stack of items (Balakirsky, page 346, lines 21 - 27 discloses FIG. 1, in which the packages to stack are shown in FIG. 1a, using a packing plan.)
applying the noise data to the generated geometric pallet and stack of items (Balakirsky, page 346, lines 21 - 27, in which FIG. 1b and 1c shows results of the packing plan, including location of packages stacked on the pallet which produces an error in terms of collisions occurring if implemented in the real environment.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov with the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky and the additional teaching of the placement of packages that results in an error, also found in Balakirsky. The motivation to do so would have been because Balakirsky discloses the benefit of a physics enabled simulator that allows studying of interlocking among hidden internal boxes and makes it possible to study metrics that cannot be determined by mere statistics (Balakirsky, page 336, Abstract, lines 10 - 12).
For claim 18: The combination of Diankov and Balakirsky discloses claim 18: The robotic system of claim 16, wherein
the noise data is not uniformly distributed (Balakirsky, page 346, lines 25 - 27 discloses errors include the placement of a package being suspended in mid-air and not on the stacked packages, in which an individual package of the plurality of packages is recited as providing an error.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov with the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky and the additional teaching of the placement of packages that results in an error, also found in Balakirsky. The motivation to do so would have been because Balakirsky discloses the benefit of a physics enabled simulator that allows studying of interlocking among hidden internal boxes and makes it possible to study metrics that cannot be determined by mere statistics (Balakirsky, page 336, Abstract, lines 10 - 12).
Claims 7 - 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diankov et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0170596 A1), in view of Balakirsky et al (“Using Simulation to Access the Effectiveness of Pallet Stacking Methods”), and further in view of Rosen et al. (JP 2020196624), hereinafter “Rosen”.
As per claim 7, the combination of Diankov and Balakirsky discloses the system of claim 1.
The combination of Diankov and Balakirsky does not expressly disclose:
wherein each of the plurality of computer simulations implement a different state estimation model from among a plurality of state estimation models.
Rosen however discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of computer simulations implement a different state estimation model from among a plurality of state estimation models (Rosen, par [0040] discloses using a plurality of platform models to stack placement of objects, including boxes, cases, and packages, by a robot system, with par [0048] discloses generating placement plans in 2D and 3D and determining placement scores from the possible placements using conditions and rules, and selecting the placement plan that optimizes the placement scores, and par [0104] discloses performing a simulation of a stacking plan for packages.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov and the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky with the iteratively generating a stacking plan and selecting the optimized stacking plan and stacking simulation teaching of Rosen. The motivation to do so would have been because Rosen discloses the benefit of the robot system providing real-time placement plans based on live conditions, unlike traditional systems (Rosen, par [0015]).
For claim 8: The combination of Diankov, Balakirsky and Rosen discloses claim 8: The system of claim 7, wherein
each state estimation model of the plurality of state estimation models differently simulate the noise data (Rosen, par [0102] discloses implementing a stacking plan for available packages based on sensor information, with par [0104] discloses simulating a stacking plan based on identifying available packages, and par [0106] adds stacking of packages based on prior knowledge of the number of packages, as well as stacking of packages when there is no prior knowledge of the number of packages to stack, and par [0129] discloses simulating stacking plans with the number of available packages known as well as simulating stacking plans with an unknown number of available packages, which includes additional step (or steps) performed.)
The stacking plan simulation of unknown number of available packages is considered as providing a different simulation than the stacking plan simulation of known number of available packages, with the noise data interpreted as the unknown number of packages, as sensors scan the packages due to the sensors scanning the number of packages to provide information (Par [0109]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov and the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky with the iteratively generating a stacking plan and selecting the optimized stacking plan and stacking simulation teaching of Rosen. The motivation to do so would have been because Rosen discloses the benefit of the robot system providing real-time placement plans based on live conditions, unlike traditional systems (Rosen, par [0015]).
For claim 9: The combination of Diankov, Balakirsky and Rosen discloses claim 9: The system of claim 7, wherein
each of the plurality of computer simulations implement a same state estimate model, and each of the plurality of computer simulations implement different settings or configurations (Rosen, par [0066] discloses generating a stacking plan based on horizontal or vertical stacking requirements, and the simulation of stacking plans for packages performed in par [0104].)
For claim 20: The combination of Diankov, Balakirsky, and Rosen discloses claim 20: The system of claim 1, wherein
the one or more processors iteratively run simulations with respect to one or more of (i) a plurality of state estimation models, and (ii) adjusting one or more parameters of a particular state estimation model (Rosen, par [0040] discloses using a plurality of platform models to stack placement of objects, including boxes, cases, and packages, by a robot system, and par [0104] discloses performing a simulation of a stacking plan for packages, and par [0155] adds iteratively generating or updating stacking plans in the simulation after a package arrives.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov and the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky with the iteratively generating a stacking plan during a simulation when an arrived package teaching of Rosen. The motivation to do so would have been because Rosen discloses the benefit of the robot system providing real-time placement plans based on live conditions, unlike traditional systems (Rosen, par [0015]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diankov et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0170596 A1), in view of Balakirsky et al (“Using Simulation to Access the Effectiveness of Pallet Stacking Methods”), and further in view of Shah et al (U.S. PG Pub 2019/0194005 A1), hereinafter “Shah”.
As per claim 10, the combination of Diankov and Balakirksky discloses the system of claim 1.
The combination of Diankov and Balakirksky does not expressly disclose:
wherein the noise data reflects a miscalibration or misalignment of sensors comprised in a workspace comprising the plurality of items stacked on the pallet or other receptacle.
Shah however discloses:
wherein the noise data reflects a miscalibration or misalignment of sensors comprised in a workspace comprising the plurality of items stacked on the pallet or other receptacle (Shah, par [0112] discloses noises in determining if a pallet has been displaced, including sensor inaccuracies as a source of the noise.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov and the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky with the sensor noise, robotic system and pallet teaching of Shah. The motivation to do so would have been because Shah discloses the benefit of using an exclusion field during engagement and disengagement of a pallet, to provide a presence of more than a threshold number of points representing the face of the pallet within a threshold region to provide an indication if the pallet has been repositioned unintentionally (Shah, par [0046]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diankov et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0170596 A1), in view of Balakirsky et al (“Using Simulation to Access the Effectiveness of Pallet Stacking Methods”), and further in view of Marchese et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0398441 A1), hereinafter “Marchese”.
As per claim 12, the combination of Diankov and Balakirsky discloses the system of claim 11.
The combination of Diankov and Balakirsky does not expressly disclose:
wherein the environmental conditions comprise one or more of dust, reflective surface glare, and humidity.
wherein the environmental conditions comprise one or more of dust, reflective surface glare, and humidity (Marchese, par [0047] discloses a robotic, along with sensors obtaining environmental data including humidity.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov and the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky with the environmental data obtained from a sensor regarding robot unit teaching of Marchese. The motivation to do so would have been because Marchese discloses the benefit of using information, including collected information about the environment, to select an optimal picking mechanism for the robot picking arm to pick an item while also controlling its movement (Marchese, par [0047]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diankov et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0170596 A1), in view of Balakirsky et al (“Using Simulation to Access the Effectiveness of Pallet Stacking Methods”), and further in view of Konolige et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2016/0016311 A1), hereinafter “Konolige”.
As per claim 17, the combination of Diankov and Balakirsky discloses the system of claim 16.
The combination of Diankov and Balakirsky does not expressly disclose:
wherein the noise data is non-linear.
Konolige however discloses:
wherein the noise data is non-linear (Konolige, par [0070] discloses offsets of the target and sensors, and a two-stage nonlinear process is performed to provide calibration of the sensor, and can be extended for robot parameters.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov and the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky with the optimization using a nonlinear step to calibrate sensor offsets teaching of Konolige. The motivation to do so would have been because Konolige discloses the benefit of using a calibration camera for robot motion used to obtain more accurate camera calibration, and thus used to optimize calibration and tracking parameters (Konolige, par [0071]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diankov et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0170596 A1), in view of Balakirsky et al (“Using Simulation to Access the Effectiveness of Pallet Stacking Methods”), in view of Rosen et al. (JP 2020196624), and further in view of Arase et al (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0376662 A1), hereinafter “Arase”.
As per claim 21, the combination of Diankov, Balakirsky and Rosen discloses the system of claim 20.
The combination of Diankov, Balakirsky, and Rosen does not expressly disclose:
wherein the one or more processors implement a machine learning process to learn one or more characteristics or configurations that yields a best result.
Arase however discloses:
wherein the one or more processors implement a machine learning process to learn one or more characteristics or configurations that yields a best result (Arase, par [0135] discloses using machine learning for a control sequence regarding a robot control unit, with the control sequence used in the robot unit to instruct a robot for placement of objects in containers and checking of space in containers to increase storage efficiency.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system teaching of Diankov, the robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues teaching of Balakirsky, the iteratively generating a stacking plan during a simulation when an arrived package teaching of Rosen, and the improved efficiency of storing objects in a container by a robot teaching of Arase. The motivation to do so would have been because Arase discloses the benefit of a robotic system and controller that can adjust and control interactions among separate units, which reduces and at times eliminates operator intervention and provide improved storage efficiency on operation objects, operating efficiency and economy (Arase, par [0059]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 22 are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of Diankov et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0170596 A1) discloses simulation of pallet stacking by the robotic system, Balakirsky et al (“Using Simulation to Access the Effectiveness of Pallet Stacking Methods”) discloses robotic palletizing simulation in which errors in the palletizing plan would provide real-world issues, Konolige et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2016/0016311 A1) discloses optimization using a nonlinear step to calibrate sensor offsets, Marchese et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0398441 A1) discloses environmental data obtained from a sensor regarding robot unit, Rosen et al. (JP 2020196624) discloses iteratively generating a stacking plan during a simulation when an arrived package, and Arase et al (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0376662 A1) discloses improved efficiency of storing objects in a container by a robot.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Diankov, Balakirsky, Konolige, Marchese, Rosen, and Arase, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses:
Claim 19, wherein the noise data reflects imperfections introduced by a camera in the real world physical workspace, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Claim 22, wherein the best result corresponds to a set of characteristics or configurations that provide a quickest estimation of the state given the noise data, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
December 20, 2025