DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
2. Claims 1-39 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 4-5, 13, 15-16, 23-25, 29, and 35-37 are amended.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 28 January 2026, with respect to rejections of claims 4, 15, 24, and 36 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 4, 15, 24, and 36 have been withdrawn. Applicant has successfully overcome the rejections by eliminating indefinite terms of degree from their claims.
4. Applicant's arguments filed 28 January 2026, with respect to rejections of claims 5, 16, 25, and 37 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While applicant has amended these claims to replace the indefinite term of degree “closely matched” with the acceptable term “sequential”, the term “comparable” also cited as indefinite in the previous office action has not been amended and remains a ground of rejection for these claims.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11,13-21,23-30 and 32-39 (previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has successfully overcome rejections in the previous action based on primary reference Diankov by means of their amended claims, now requiring two cooperating robotic devices that can actually be placed in a tractor trailer, which Diankov does not disclose. However, new search discovered reference Eldershaw, which discloses not only much the same matter as Diankov with respect to applicant’s unamended limitations, but also multiple cooperating robotic arms placed in a tractor trailer. Diankov is now employed as a secondary reference for selected rejections.
Claim Interpretation
6. Many claims recite the terms “load assessment” and “object assessment”, referring to systems and data, evidently intending to distinguish one from the other. These terms are not formally defined in the instant specification (though object assessment has somewhat more exemplary support than load assessment, e.g. in [0006]). As tractor-trailer loads comprise objects, all object assessment data must also be load assessment data where the objects are part of loads (as in all cases in the instant application) and all load assessment data must also be object assessment data for the same reason. Where no further limitation of the two types of data or systems are provided in a particular claim, we consider these two types of data and systems to overlap conceptually and to not present clearly distinguishing features. In particular, digital cameras operated by or in communication with controllers are capable of both assessing loads in a tractor trailer interior and assessing various qualities of individual objects.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claims 3 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 3 and 34 claim the determination of object proximity to the back end of a trailer. We find no support for this determination in the instant specification.
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.
8. Claims 5, 16, 25, and 37 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.
The term “comparable” in claims 5, 16, 25, and 37 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A numeric range, error term, or similar definite formulation would enable two elevations to be compared, but as claimed there is no way for a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether two elevations are indeed comparable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 35-37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eldershaw, et al., US 2012/0253507 (hereinafter Eldershaw).
10. Regarding claim 1,
Eldershaw discloses:
An object processing system (parcel handling system 200: figs. 2-3) for dynamically providing the removal of objects from a trailer of a tractor trailer, See abstract and [0008] for the general system and [0001] for the tractor trailer disclosed as an example of the “containers” that Eldershaw’s system can access.
said object processing system comprising: a load assessment system (camera systems 206: fig. 2; 232a-h: fig. 3; controller 208: fig. 2) for assessing a load characteristic of a plurality of objects within the trailer and for providing load assessment data representative of the load characteristic, the load characteristic comprising a position of at least one of the plurality of objects;We consider the claimed object assessment system to comprise Eldershaw’s cameras 206 and 232a-h with its controller 208 which is disclosed in [0023] to make use of camera data (load-assessment and object assessment data) to control its robotic arms. Per Claim Interpretation above, we conflate load assessment and object assessment systems and data. Eldershaw discloses in [0008] and [0036]-[0038] that its cameras determine the position and arrangement of parcels in a container, a tractor trailer being disclosed in [0001] as an example of a container.
an object assessment system (camera systems 206: fig. 2; 232a-h: fig. 3; controller 208: fig. 2) for assessing a relative position and relative environment of an object of the plurality of objects responsive to the load assessment data, and for providing object assessment data for the object, the object assessment system deriving dynamic object engagement instructions using the object assessment data;We consider the claimed object assessment system to likewise comprise Eldershaw’s cameras 206 and 232a-h with its controller 208 which is disclosed in [0023] to control both conveyors and robotic arms (i.e. to provide “dynamic object engagement instructions” to the arms), and in [0036]-[0038] to make use of camera data (load-assessment and object assessment data) to control its robotic arms. Per Claim Interpretation above, we conflate load assessment and object assessment systems and data.
and a dynamic engagement system (robot arms 204: fig. 2, 222a-h: fig. 3; controller 208: fig. 2) for dynamically engaging the objects within the trailer with two cooperatively operable programmable motion devices (cameras 204: fig. 2; 222a-h: fig. 3; controller 208: fig. 3), each of the two cooperatively operable programmable motion devices capable of being moveably positioned within the trailer, and responsive to the dynamic object engagement instructions to cooperatively remove the plurality of objects from the trailer.We consider the dynamic engagement system to comprise Eldershaw’s controller 208 and its robotic arm system 204 which in [0008] is disclosed to include a cluster of robotic arms (individual arms 222a-h in fig. 3). Eldershaw discloses in [0021] that its plurality of robotic arms are capable of moving into position to reach parcels; this can only be done when an arm is physically within the interior of a trailer as claimed. Eldershaw discloses the cooperative removal of parcels by a plurality of robotic arms in [0028]. “Dynamic object engagement” instructions sent from the controller to the robotic arms to pick and move objects are disclosed in [0042].
11. Regarding claim 2,
Eldershaw discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the load assessment system includes a plurality of perception units (camera systems 206: fig. 2; 232a-h: fig. 3) that provide perception data, and wherein the load characteristic includes a height of the plurality of objects.As height is one of the features of size and position and Eldershaw discloses in [0036] that its cameras determine location, size, position, and configuration of parcels in a trailer, we consider that its cameras must determine height of parcels even if height is not explicitly disclosed. Eldershaw’s robotic grippers would be unable to grip its parcels if the height of the parcels were unknown.
12. Regarding claim 4,
Eldershaw discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate to maintain sequential grasp-to-placement timing.As all discrete events and actions must occur in some sequence, the action of two grasp-to-placement devices, cooperating or not, must necessarily be sequential as regards their timing. Moreover, considering that Eldershaw discloses device cooperation in [0028] and that cooperation of robotic devices is only possible when timing of the devices is coordinated, the particular sequential timing of robotic operations for every cooperative action must be explicitly managed by Eldershaw’s system.
13. Regarding claim 5,
Eldershaw discloses the limitations of claim 4 and also:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate to maintain sequential grasp-to-placement timing by grasping objects at comparable elevations within the trailer. Eldershaw discloses in [0029] that all its robotic arms 222a-h may be supported by the same gantry. This means they will all be at the same elevation. In such a configuration, all the arms will be able to access objects at comparable elevations. Timing of the grasp actions will be sequential for the same reasons as cited in rejection of parent claim 4.
14. Regarding claim 7,
Eldershaw discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate together to lift an object for movement together to an output conveyor.Eldershaw teaches the claimed cooperative operation in [0030] and the placement on an output conveyor in [0008].
15. Regarding claim 35,
Eldershaw discloses:
A method of providing the removal of a plurality of objects from a trailer of a tractor trailer, said method comprising: assessing a load characteristic of a plurality of objects within the trailer and for providing load assessment data representative of the load characteristic, the load characteristic comprising a relative position and relative environment of at least one object of the plurality of objects;
assessing the relative position and relative environment of the at least one object of the plurality of objects responsive to the load assessment data, and for providing object assessment data for the object;Regarding both the above limitations, Eldershaw discloses in [0036]-[0038] determining the location, size, position, and configuration of parcels in a container where a trailer is an example of a container per [0001]. These attributes are the claimed “load characteristics” which comprise position of the individual parcels and also their overall or relative arrangement, as Eldershaw discloses in [0022] one of its cameras views the overall interior of a trailer while in [0025] more cameras determining features of individual parcels. So long as coordinates for multiple parcels are determined, relative arrangements of the parcels are also determined as a logical consequence.
and dynamically engaging the objects within the trailer with two cooperatively operable programmable motion devices, each of the two cooperatively operable programmable motion devices (arms 222a-b: fig. 3) capable of being moveably positioned within the trailer, and responsive to the object assessment data to cooperatively remove the plurality of objects from the trailer.Eldershaw discloses eight cooperatively operable robots arms 222a-h being capable of positioned in a container or trailer in [0008], [0021], and [0028]. The claimed “dynamic engagement” or gripping of items in the trailer is first disclosed in [0016] and is thereafter the detailed subject of the disclosure. Responsiveness of gripping to object assessment data is disclosed in [0036] and [0042].
16. Regarding claim 36,
Eldershaw discloses the limitations of claim 35 and also:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate to maintain sequential grasp-to-placement timing.As all discrete events and actions must occur in some sequence, the action of two grasp-to-placement devices, cooperating or not, must necessarily be sequential as regards their timing. Moreover, considering that Eldershaw discloses device cooperation in [0028] and that cooperation of robotic devices is only possible when timing of the devices is managed, the actual sequential timing of robotic operations must be explicitly managed by Eldershaw’s system.
17. Regarding claim 37,
Eldershaw discloses the limitations of claim 36 and also:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate to maintain sequential grasp-to-placement timing by grasping objects at comparable elevations within the trailer. Eldershaw discloses in [0029] that all its robotic arms 222a-h may be supported by the same gantry. This means they will all be at the same elevation. In such a configuration, all the arms will be able to access objects at comparable elevations. Timing of the grasp actions will be sequential for the same reasons as cited in rejection of parent claim 4.
18. Regarding claim 39,
Eldershaw discloses the limitations of claim 35 and also:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate together to lift an object for movement together to an output conveyor.Eldershaw teaches the claimed cooperative operation in [0030] and the placement on an output conveyor in [0008].
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.
19. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldershaw in view of Diankov, US 2020/0223066 (hereinafter Diankov).
Eldershaw discloses the limitations of claim 1, but not:
wherein the load assessment system includes a plurality of perception units that provide perception data, and wherein the load characteristic includes a proximity of the plurality of objects to a back end of the trailer.While Eldershaw’s cameras that view the interior of its trailer and that determine the positions of objects in the trailer are capable of determining proximity of objects to a back end of a trailer, this limitation is not explicitly disclosed.
Diankov, an invention in the field of trailer unloading, teaches:
wherein the load assessment system includes a plurality of perception units that provide perception data, and wherein the load characteristic includes a proximity of the plurality of objects to a back end of the trailer.Diankov teaches the use of distance-measuring devices such as cameras, lidars and radars for analyzing the surrounding environment and a designated area in [0036]-[0037]; the surrounding environment includes the bounds and extents of the designated area such as the inside of the truck in which the articles are being stored, i.e. the trailer and its ends.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Eldershaw, wherein the load assessment system includes a plurality of perception units that provide perception data, and wherein the load characteristic includes a proximity of the plurality of objects to a back end of the trailer, as taught by Diankov, because determining the extent of a container such as a tractor trailer is plainly useful in determining the amount of cargo that needs to be unloaded as well as the progress towards completion of unloading cargo, and determining the proximity of a particular parcel or unit of cargo to the rear of the trailer contributes to this determination of progress. A unit of cargo close to a rear wall may also provide a useful constraint for avoiding collision with the wall and consequent damage to either the cargo or a robotic manipulator.
20. Claims 6 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldershaw in view of Takai, et al., US 2018/0313861 (hereinafter Takai).
21. Regarding claim 6,
Eldershaw discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
prior to placement on an output conveyor.Eldershaw discloses a conveyor 202 in fig. 2 onto which parcels are placed after being picked by its robotic arms in [0008].
However, Eldershaw does not fully disclose:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate in series such that one programmable motion device passes an object to the other programmable motion device [prior to placement on an output conveyor.]While Eldershaw’s cooperating robot arms are plainly capable of acting in series to pass an object from one arm to another, the actual operation is not explicitly disclosed.
Takai, an invention in the field of article handling, teaches:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate in series such that one programmable motion device passes an object to the other programmable motion device [prior to placement on an output conveyor.]Takai teaches in [0037] that articles such as containers can be passed from one robotic arm to the other. As Eldershaw discloses multiple cooperating robotic arms, we are not incorporating any of Takai’s structure in combination with Eldershaw, merely its teaching of using robotic arms in series for passing objects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Eldershaw, wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate in series such that one programmable motion device passes an object to the other programmable motion device, as taught by Takai because with some configurations of arms and conveyors it may be more efficient for one arm to pass an object to another in series rather than employing both arms in parallel.
22. Regarding claim 38,
Eldershaw discloses the limitations of claim 35 and also:
prior to placement on an output conveyor.Eldershaw discloses a conveyor 202 in fig. 2 onto which parcels are placed after being picked by its robotic arms in [0008].
However, Eldershaw does not fully disclose:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate in series such that one programmable motion device passes an object to the other programmable motion device [prior to placement on an output conveyor.]While Eldershaw’s cooperating robot arms are plainly capable of acting in series to pass an object from one arm to another, the actual operation is not explicitly disclosed.
Takai, an invention in the field of article handling, teaches:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate in series such that one programmable motion device passes an object to the other programmable motion device [prior to placement on an output conveyor.]Takai teaches in [0037] that articles such as containers can be passed from one robotic arm to the other. As Eldershaw discloses multiple cooperating robotic arms, we are not incorporating any of Takai’s structure in combination with Eldershaw, merely its method teaching of using robotic arms in series for passing objects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Eldershaw, wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate in series such that one programmable motion device passes an object to the other programmable motion, as taught by Takai because in some configurations of arms it may be more efficient for one arm to pass an object to another in series rather than employing both arms in parallel.
23. Claims 8, 13-16, 18, 23-25, 27, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldershaw in view of Robinson, et al., US 2020/0202506 (hereinafter Robinson).
24. Regarding claim 8,
Eldershaw discloses the limitations of claim 1, but not:
wherein the object processing system further includes a securement detection system for detecting whether any of the plurality of objects within the trailer are secured from movement relative any of the trailer or other objects of the plurality of objects.Eldershaw does not disclose securement detection.
Robinson, an invention in the field of article handling, teaches the limitation:
wherein the object processing system further includes a securement detection system (18: fig. 1) for detecting whether any of the plurality of objects within the trailer are secured from movement relative any of the trailer or other objects of the plurality of objects.Robinson teaches in [0014] and [0062] an image recorder as part of a pallet inspection system which is capable of ascertaining, in combination with a software routine, whether a pallet has been secured by means of straps, bands, or plastic wrap. The use of this image sensor and software in combination with the cameras and controller taught by Eldershaw would implement the claimed securement detection system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Eldershaw, wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate together wherein the object processing system further includes a securement detection system for detecting whether any of the plurality of objects within the trailer are secured from movement relative any of the trailer or other objects of the plurality of objects, as taught by Robinson, because where objects in a trailer or on a pallet are secured against movement, an attempt to move them will likely either fail or damage the objects. Because Eldershaw already discloses camera sensors associated with their object processing system, the addition of Robinson’s teaching is a simple matter of programming, yielding routine and predictable results.
25. Regarding claim 13,
Eldershaw discloses:
An object processing system for dynamically providing the removal of objects from a trailer of a tractor trailer,See abstract and [0008] for the general system and [0001] for the tractor trailer disclosed as an example of the “containers” which Eldershaw’s system can access.
said object processing system comprising: a load assessment system (cameras 204: fig. 2; 222a-h: fig. 3; controller 208: fig. 3) for assessing a load characteristic of a plurality of objects within the trailer and for providing load assessment data representative of the load characteristic, the load characteristic comprising a position of at least one of the plurality of objects;We consider the claimed load assessment system to comprise Eldershaw’s cameras 206 and 232a-h with its controller 208 which is disclosed in [0023] to make use of camera data (load-assessment and object assessment data) to control its robotic arms. Per Claim Interpretation above, we conflate load assessment and object assessment systems and data. Eldershaw discloses in [0008] and [0036]-[0038] that its cameras determine the position and arrangement of parcels in a container, a tractor trailer being disclosed in [0001] as an example of a container.
an engagement system including at least two cooperatively operable programmable motion devices (robot arms 222a-h: fig. 3) for engaging the objects within the trailer, each of the two cooperatively operable programmable motion devices capable of being moveably positioned within the trailer, and responsive to the load assessment data; We consider the engagement system to comprise Eldershaw’s controller 208 and its robotic arm system 204 which in [0008] is disclosed to include a cluster of robotic arms (individual arms 222a-h in fig. 3). Eldershaw discloses in [0021] that its plurality of robotic arms are capable of moving into position to reach parcels; this can only be done when an arm is physically within the interior of a trailer as claimed. Eldershaw discloses the cooperative removal of parcels by a plurality of robotic arms in [0028]. Responsiveness of gripping to load assessment data is disclosed in [0036] and [0042].
However, Eldershaw does not disclose:
and a securement detection system for detecting whether any of the plurality of objects within the trailer are secured from movement relative any of the trailer or other objects of the plurality of objects.
Robinson, an invention in the field of article handling, teaches:
and a securement detection system (18: fig. 1) for detecting whether any of the plurality of objects within the trailer are secured from movement relative any of the trailer or other objects of the plurality of objects.Robinson teaches in [0014] and [0062] an image recorder as part of a pallet inspection system which is capable of ascertaining, in combination with a software routine, whether a pallet has been secured for example by means of straps, bands, or plastic wrap. The use of this image sensor and software in combination with the controller taught by Eldershaw would implement the claimed securement detection system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Eldershaw, wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate together wherein the object processing system further includes a securement detection system for detecting whether any of the plurality of objects within the trailer are secured from movement relative any of the trailer or other objects of the plurality of objects, as taught by Robinson, because where objects in a trailer are secured against movement, an attempt to move them will likely either fail or damage the objects. Because Eldershaw already teaches sensors and computers controller associated with its object processing system, the addition of Robinson’s teaching is a simple matter of programming, yielding routine and predictable results.
26. Regarding claim 14,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 13 and also:
wherein the load assessment system includes a plurality of perception units (Eldershaw, camera systems 206: fig. 2; 232a-h: fig. 3) that provide perception data, and wherein the load characteristic includes a height of the plurality of objects.As height is one of the features of size and position and Eldershaw discloses in [0036] that its cameras determine location, size, position, and configuration of parcels in a trailer, we consider that its cameras must determine height of parcels even if height is not explicitly disclosed. Eldershaw’s robotic grippers would be unable to grip its parcels if the height of the parcels were unknown.
27. Regarding claim 15,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 13 and also:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate to maintain sequential grasp-to-placement timing.As all discrete events and actions must occur in some sequence, the actions of two grasp-to-placement devices, cooperating or not, must necessarily be sequential as regards their timing. Moreover, considering that Eldershaw discloses device cooperation in [0028] and that cooperation of robotic devices is only possible when timing of the devices is managed, the actual sequential timing of robotic operations must be explicitly managed by Eldershaw’s system.
28. Regarding claim 16,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 15 and also:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate to maintain sequential grasp-to-placement timing by grasping objects at comparable elevations within the trailer. Eldershaw discloses in [0029] that all its robotic arms 222a-h may be supported by the same gantry. This means they will all be at the same elevation. In such a configuration, all the arms will be able to access objects at comparable elevations. Timing of the grasp actions will be sequential for the same reasons as cited in rejection of parent claim 15.
29. Regarding claim 18,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 13 and also:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate together to lift an object for movement together to an output conveyor.Eldershaw teaches the claimed cooperative operation in [0030] and the placement on an output conveyor in [0008].
30. Regarding claim 23,
Eldershaw discloses:
An object processing system for dynamically providing the removal of objects from a trailer of a tractor trailer,See abstract and [0008] for the general system and [0001] for the tractor trailer disclosed as an example of the “containers” that Eldershaw’s system can access.
said object processing system comprising: an object assessment system (camera systems 206: fig. 2; 232a-h: fig. 3; controller 208: fig. 2) for assessing a relative position and immediate environment of object of the plurality of objects, and for providing object assessment data for the object, the object assessment system deriving dynamic object engagement instructions using the object assessment data;We consider the claimed object assessment system to comprise Eldershaw’s cameras 206 and 232a-h with its controller 208 which is disclosed in [0023] to control both conveyors and robotic arms (i.e. to provide “dynamic object engagement instructions” to the arms), and in [0036]-[0038] to make use of camera data (load-assessment and object assessment data) to control its robotic arms. Per Claim Interpretation above, we conflate load assessment and object assessment systems and data.
an engagement system (robot arms 204: fig. 2, 222a-h: fig. 3; controller 208: fig. 2) for dynamically engaging the objects within the trailer with either of at least two cooperatively operable programmable motion devices, each of the two cooperatively operable programmable motion devices capable of being moveably positioned within the trailer, and responsive to the dynamic object engagement instructions;We consider the dynamic engagement system to comprise Eldershaw’s controller 208 and its robotic arm system 204 which in [0008] is disclosed to include a cluster of robotic arms (individual arms 222a-h in fig. 3). Eldershaw discloses in [0021] that its plurality of robotic arms are capable of moving into position to reach parcels; this can only be done when an arm is physically within the interior of a trailer as claimed. Eldershaw discloses the cooperative removal of parcels by a plurality of robotic arms in [0028].
However, Eldershaw does not disclose:
and a securement detection system for detecting whether any of the plurality of objects within the trailer are secured from movement relative any of the trailer or other objects of the plurality of objects.Eldershaw does not disclose securement detection.
Robinson, an invention in the field of article handling, teaches:
and a securement detection system (18: fig. 1) for detecting whether any of the plurality of objects within the trailer are secured from movement relative any of the trailer or other objects of the plurality of objects.Robinson teaches in [0014] and [0062] an image recorder as part of a pallet inspection system which is capable of ascertaining, in combination with a software routine, whether a pallet has been secured for example by means of straps, bands, or plastic wrap. The use of this image sensor and software in combination with the controller taught by Eldershaw would implement the claimed securement detection system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Eldershaw, a securement detection system for detecting whether any of the plurality of objects within the trailer are secured from movement relative any of the trailer or other objects of the plurality of objects, as taught by Robinson, because where objects in a trailer are secured against movement, an attempt to move them will likely either fail or damage the objects. Because Eldershaw already teaches sensors and a controller associated with its object processing system, the addition of Robinson’s teaching is a simple matter of programming, yielding routine and predictable results.
31. Regarding claim 24,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 23 and also:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate to maintain sequential grasp-to-placement timing.As all discrete events and actions must occur in some sequence, the action of two grasp-to-placement devices, cooperating or not, must necessarily be sequential as regards their timing. Moreover, considering that Eldershaw discloses device cooperation in [0028] and that cooperation of robotic devices is only possible when timing of the devices is managed, the actual sequential timing of robotic operations must be explicitly managed by Eldershaw’s system.
32. Regarding claim 25,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 24 and also:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate to maintain sequential grasp-to-placement timing by grasping objects at comparable elevations within the trailer. Eldershaw discloses in [0029] that all its robotic arms 222a-h may be supported by the same gantry. This means they will all be at the same elevation. In such a configuration, all the arms will be able to access objects at comparable elevations. Timing of the grasp actions will be sequential for the same reasons as cited in rejection of parent claim 24.
33. Regarding claim 27,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 23 and also:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate together to lift an object for movement together to an output conveyor.Eldershaw teaches the claimed cooperative operation in [0030] and the placement on an output conveyor in [0008].
34. Regarding claim 32,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 23 and also:
wherein the object processing system further includes a load assessment system (camera systems 206: fig. 2; 232a-h: fig. 3; controller 208: fig. 2) for assessing a load characteristic of a plurality of objects within the trailer and for providing load assessment data representative of the load characteristic.Per Claim Interpretation, we conflate our understanding of “load assessment” and “object assessment” systems. For Eldershaw, both these combined systems comprise the same cameras and controller. Eldershaw discloses in [0036] that its cameras determine location, size, position, and configuration of parcels in a trailer, all of which can be considered load characteristics of the objects in the trailer.
35. Regarding claim 33,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 32 and also:
wherein the load assessment system includes a plurality of perception units (Eldershaw, camera systems 206: fig. 2; 232a-h: fig. 3) that provide perception data, and wherein the load characteristic includes a height of the plurality of objects.As height is one of the features of size and position and Eldershaw discloses in [0036] that its cameras determine location, size, position, and configuration of parcels in a trailer, we consider that its cameras must determine height of parcels even if height is not explicitly disclosed. Eldershaw’s robotic grippers would be unable to grip its parcels if the height of the parcels were unknown.
36. Claims 9, 19, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldershaw in view of Robinson, and further in view of Fischer, et al., US 2018/0081369 (hereinafter Fischer).
37. Regarding claim 9,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 8, but not:
wherein the securement detection system determines whether a subset of the plurality of objects is provided on a pallet.Neither reference teaches pallet detection.
Fischer, an invention in the field of article handling, teaches the limitation:
wherein the securement detection system determines whether a subset of the plurality of objects is provided on a pallet.Fischer teaches in [0117] and [0119] sensors used for pallet detection. In particular in [0119] Fischer teaches a camera sensor like those taught by the other references for this purpose. Given the detection of a pallet, it follows that the objects on the pallet constitute the claimed subset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Eldershaw and Robinson, wherein the securement detection system determines whether a subset of the plurality of objects is provided on a pallet, as taught by Fischer, because pallets supporting a plurality of objects must be handled differently from individual objects by an object processing system. Because Eldershaw and Robinson already teach sensors and computers associated with their object processing system, the addition of Fischer’s teaching is a simple matter of programming, yielding routine and predictable results.
38. Regarding claim 19,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 13, but not:
wherein the securement detection system determines whether a subset of the plurality of objects is provided on a pallet.Neither reference teaches pallet detection.
Fischer, an invention in the field of article handling, teaches the limitation:
wherein the securement detection system determines whether a subset of the plurality of objects is provided on a pallet.Fischer teaches in [0117] and [0119] sensors used for pallet detection. In particular in [0119] Fischer teaches a camera sensor like those taught by the other references for this purpose. Given the detection of a pallet, it follows that the objects on the pallet constitute the claimed subset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Eldershaw and Robinson wherein the securement detection system determines whether a subset of the plurality of objects is provided on a pallet, as taught by Fischer, because pallets supporting a plurality of objects must be handled differently from individual objects by an object processing system. Because Eldershaw and Robinson already teach sensors and computers associated with their object processing system, the addition of Fischer’s teaching is a simple matter of programming, yielding routine and predictable results.
39. Regarding claim 28,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 23, but not:
wherein the securement detection system determines whether a subset of the plurality of objects is provided on a pallet.Neither reference teaches pallet detection.
Fischer, an invention in the field of article handling, teaches the limitation:
wherein the securement detection system determines whether a subset of the plurality of objects is provided on a pallet.Fischer teaches in [0117] and [0119] sensors used for pallet detection. In particular in [0119] Fischer teaches a camera sensor like those taught by the other references for this purpose. Given the detection of a pallet, it follows that the objects on the pallet constitute the claimed subset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Eldershaw and Robinson wherein the securement detection system determines whether a subset of the plurality of objects is provided on a pallet, as taught by Fischer, because pallets supporting a plurality of objects must be handled differently from individual objects by an object processing system. Because Eldershaw and Robinson already teach sensors and computers associated with their object processing system, the addition of Fischer’s teaching is a simple matter of programming, yielding routine and predictable results.
40. Claims 10-11 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldershaw in view of Robinson and Fischer and further in view of Kaup, Otmar, US 2018/0229987 (hereinafter Kaup).
41. Regarding claim 10,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson and Fischer teaches the limitations of claim 9, but not all aspects of:
wherein the object processing system further includes a pallet removal system for engaging the pallet and removing the pallet and the subset of the plurality of objects from the trailer.While it’s possible Eldershaw’s robot arms could engage and remove pallets, this is not explicitly disclosed.
Kaup, an invention in the field of article handling, teaches the limitation:
wherein the object processing system further includes a pallet removal system for engaging the pallet and removing the pallet and the subset of the plurality of objects from the trailer.This is the subject of Kaup’s overall invention, see abstract. Kaup’s figs. 1a-d teach various aspects of an engagement system using a vacuum gripper for addressing items on an engaged and removed pallet, and Kaup’s fig. 3 teaches the fork itself that is used to engage and lift the pallet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Eldershaw, Robinson, and Fischer, wherein the object processing system further includes a pallet removal system for engaging the pallet and removing the pallet and the subset of the plurality of objects from the trailer, because given pallets transported by the applicant’s tractor-trailer, it is plainly necessary to have a means to remove the pallets and the articles conveyed on the pallets from the vehicle if they are to be delivered from the vehicle to a storage facility. Kaup’s invention can both remove pallets and also pick articles from a pallet.
42. Regarding claim 11,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson, Fischer and Kaup teach the limitations of claim 10, and also:
wherein the pallet removal system includes pallet lift forks (Kaup, 17: fig. 3) that are mounted on a swing arm (Kaup, 7-8: figs. 1a-c) under the dynamic engagement system.Figs. 1a-c show the swing arm and a vacuum gripping means for addressing items on a pallet and fig. 3 also shows the fork itself, which supporting the pallet is below the “dynamic engagement system” comprising the vacuum means.
43. Regarding claim 29,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson and Fischer teaches the limitations of claim 28, but not all aspects of:
wherein the object processing system further includes a pallet removal system for engaging the pallet and removing the pallet and the subset of the plurality of objects from the trailer.While it’s possible Eldershaw’s robot arms could engage and remove pallets, this is not explicitly disclosed.
Kaup, an invention in the field of article handling, teaches the limitation:
wherein the object processing system further includes a pallet removal system for engaging the pallet and removing the pallet and the subset of the plurality of objects from the trailer.This is the subject of Kaup’s overall invention, see abstract. Kaup’s figs. 1a-d teach various aspects of an engagement system using a vacuum gripper for addressing items on an engaged and removed pallet, and Kaup’s fig. 3 teaches the fork itself that is used to engage and lift the pallet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Eldershaw, Robinson, and Fischer, wherein the object processing system further includes a pallet removal system for engaging the pallet and removing the pallet and the subset of the plurality of objects from the trailer, because given pallets transported by the applicant’s tractor-trailer, it is plainly necessary to have a means to remove the pallets and the articles conveyed on the pallets from the vehicle if they are to be delivered from the vehicle to a storage facility. Kaup’s invention can both remove pallets and also pick articles from a pallet.
44. Regarding claim 30,
Eldershaw, Robinson, Fischer and Kaup, teach the limitations of claim 29, and also:
wherein the pallet removal system includes pallet lift forks (Kaup, 17: fig. 3) that are mounted on a swing arm (Kaup, 7-8: figs. 1a-c) under the dynamic engagement system.Figs. 1a-c show the swing arm and a vacuum gripping means for addressing items on a pallet and fig. 3 also shows the fork itself, which supporting the pallet is below the “dynamic engagement system” comprising the vacuum means.
45. Claims 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldershaw in view of Robinson and further in view of Takai.
46. Regarding claim 17,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 13 and also:
prior to placement on an output conveyor.Eldershaw discloses a conveyor 202 in fig. 2 onto which parcels are placed after being picked by its robotic arms in [0008].
However, Eldershaw in view of Robinson does not fully teach:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate in series such that one programmable motion device passes an object to the other programmable motion device [prior to placement on an output conveyor.]While Eldershaw’s cooperating robot arms are plainly capable of acting in series to pass an object from one arm to another, the actual operation is not explicitly disclosed.
Takai, an invention in the field of article handling, teaches:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate in series such that one programmable motion device passes an object to the other programmable motion device [prior to placement on an output conveyor.]Takai teaches in [0037] that articles such as containers can be passed from one robotic arm to the other. As Eldershaw discloses multiple cooperating robotic arms, we are not incorporating any of Takai’s structure in combination with Eldershaw, merely its method teaching of using robotic arms in series for passing objects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Eldershaw and Robinson, wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate in series such that one programmable motion device passes an object to the other programmable motion device prior to placement on an output conveyor, as taught by Takai because in some configurations of arms it may be more efficient for one arm to pass an object to another in series rather than employing both arms in parallel.
47. Regarding claim 26,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 23 and also:
prior to placement on an output conveyor.Eldershaw discloses a conveyor 202 in fig. 2 onto which parcels are placed after being picked by its robotic arms in [0008].
However, Eldershaw in view of Robinson does not fully teach:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate in series such that one programmable motion device passes an object to the other programmable motion device [prior to placement on an output conveyor.]While Eldershaw’s cooperating robot arms are plainly capable of acting in series to pass an object from one arm to another, the actual operation is not explicitly disclosed.
Takai, an invention in the field of article handling, teaches:
wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate in series such that one programmable motion device passes an object to the other programmable motion device [prior to placement on an output conveyor.]Takai teaches in [0037] that articles such as containers can be passed from one robotic arm to the other. As Eldershaw discloses multiple cooperating robotic arms, we are not incorporating any of Takai’s structure in combination with Eldershaw and Robinson, merely its method teaching of using robotic arms in series for passing objects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Eldershaw and Robinson, wherein the cooperatively operable programmable motion devices operate in series such that one programmable motion device passes an object to the other programmable motion device, as taught by Takai because in some configurations of arms it may be more efficient for one arm to pass an object to another in series rather than employing both arms in parallel.
48. Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldershaw in view of Robinson and further in view of Kaup.
49. Regarding claim 20,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 18, but not all aspects of:
wherein the object processing system further includes a pallet removal system for engaging the pallet and removing the pallet and the subset of the plurality of objects from the trailer.While it’s possible Eldershaw’s robot arms could engage and remove pallets, this is not explicitly disclosed.
Kaup, an invention in the field of article handling, teaches the limitation:
wherein the object processing system further includes a pallet removal system for engaging the pallet and removing the pallet and the subset of the plurality of objects from the trailer.This is the subject of Kaup’s overall invention, see abstract. Kaup’s figs. 1a-d teach various aspects of an engagement system using a vacuum gripper for addressing items on an engaged and removed pallet, and Kaup’s fig. 3 teaches the fork itself that has been used to engage and lift the pallet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Eldershaw and Robinson, wherein the object processing system further includes a pallet removal system for engaging the pallet and removing the pallet and the subset of the plurality of objects from the trailer, because given pallets transported by the applicant’s tractor-trailer, it is plainly necessary to have a means to remove the pallets and the articles conveyed on the pallets from the vehicle if they are to be delivered from the vehicle to a storage facility. Kaup’s invention can both remove pallets and also pick articles from a pallet.
50. Regarding claim 21,
Eldershaw in view of Robinson and Kaup teaches the limitations of claim 20 and also:
wherein the pallet removal system includes pallet lift forks (Kaup, 17: fig. 3) that are mounted on a swing arm (Kaup, 7-8: figs. 1a-c) under the dynamic engagement system.While Kaup’s figs. 1a-c show the swing arm and a vacuum gripping means for addressing items on a pallet, fig. 3 also shows the fork itself, which supporting the pallet is below the “dynamic engagement system” comprising the vacuum means.
51. Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldershaw in view of Robinson, and further in view of Diankov.
Eldershaw in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 32 but not:
wherein the load assessment system includes a plurality of perception units that provide perception data, and wherein the load characteristic includes a proximity of the plurality of objects to a back end of the trailer.While Eldershaw’s cameras that view the interior of its trailer and that determine the positions of objects in the trailer are plainly capable of determining proximity of objects to a back end of a trailer, this limitation is not explicitly disclosed.
Diankov, an invention in the field of trailer unloading, teaches:
wherein the load assessment system includes a plurality of perception units that provide perception data, and wherein the load characteristic includes a proximity of the plurality of objects to a back end of the trailer.Diankov teaches the use of distance-measuring devices such as cameras, lidars and radars for analyzing the surrounding environment and a designated area in [0036]-[0037]; the surrounding environment includes the bounds and extents of the designated area such as the inside of the truck in which the articles are being stored, i.e. the trailer and its ends.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Eldershaw and Robinson, wherein the load assessment system includes a plurality of perception units that provide perception data, and wherein the load characteristic includes a proximity of the plurality of objects to a back end of the trailer, as taught by Diankov, because determining the extent of a container such as a tractor trailer is plainly useful in determining the amount of cargo that needs to be unloaded as well as the progress towards completion of unloading cargo, and determining the proximity of a particular parcel or unit of cargo to the rear of the trailer contributes to this determination of progress. A unit of cargo close to a rear wall may also provide a useful constraint for avoiding collision with the wall and consequent damage to either the cargo or a robotic manipulator.
Allowable Subject Matter
52. Claims 12, 22, and 31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 12, 22, and 31, The specific detection of cargo netting, webbing or similar nets used to retain articles, cargo or freight as a narrowly limited form of “securement detection” was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested in the prior art of record. We consider the detection of fishing nets and other reticulated fabrics not meant for retaining cargos in tractor-trailers to be too far removed from the applicant’s claims to be relevant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655