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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 9th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Ban is fundamentally different from the presently claimed robotic end effector, this argument is not persuasive because the rejection is based on what Ban teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, rather than on an identical structural arrangement. The rejection does not rely on Ban disclosing a lateral member in exactly the same form, but rather on Ban teaching a lateral member configured to be coupled to a robotic arm, and gripper arms coupled at opposite ends. Differences in overall structure, standing alone, do not overcome a prima facie case of obviousness when the claimed limitations are taught or suggested by the prior art.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Ban, in view of Zevenbergen, fails to disclose or render obvious the overall architecture of the presently claimed robotic end effector, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Ban, with the teachings of Zevenbergen, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 15-18 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Ban (US 20100078953 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ban discloses a robotic end effector comprising: a lateral member (47; see Fig. 1A-1C) configured to be coupled to a robotic arm (see Para. 0018); a robotically actuated grasping mechanism (22; see Fig. 1A-1C) comprising a suction-based grasping mechanisms (see Para. 0031) coupled to the lateral member (47; see Fig. 1A-1C); a robotically actuated second grasping mechanism comprising a first element (31; see Fig. 1A-1C) and a second element (32; see Fig. 1A-1C) coupled to the lateral member at opposite ends thereof and positioned on either side of a central vertical axis of the robotic end effector (see Fig. 1A-1D), wherein the robotically actuated first grasping mechanism is positioned between the first element and the second element (see Fig. 1A-1C); and a robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism configured to move at least one of the first element or the second element relative to the lateral member between (i) a stowed position (see Fig. 1A for the second element in stowed position) in which the first grasping mechanism is exposed for use in a first mode of operation and (ii) a deployed position in which the second grasping mechanism is positioned for use in a second mode of operation (see Fig. 1B-1C for second element in deployed position).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the robotically actuated second grasping mechanism (31 and 31; see Fig. 1A-1C) is robotically positioned in an inactive state (see Fig. 1A) when the robotic end effector is controlled to operate in the first mode (see Fig. 1A; the first mode of operation); and the robotically actuated second grasping mechanism is robotically positioned in an active state when is the end effector is controlled to operate in the second mode (see Fig. 1B-1C; second mode of operation).
Regarding claim 3, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the placing the robotic end effector in the first mode exposes at least part of the robotically actuated first grasping mechanism for the robotically actuated first grasping mechanism to engage a first object (see Fig. 1A).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the robotically actuated second grasping mechanism (31 and 32; see Fig. 1A-1C) is configured to grasp a tray or other receptacle (see Fig. 1C).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the robotically actuated first grasping mechanism (22) is configured to grasp a tray or other receptacle (see Fig. 1A).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the robotic end effector is configured to be connected to a robotic arm (see Para. 0030); and the first element (31) and the second element (32) correspond to gripper arms configured to engage two or more sides of an object or a bottom of the object (see Fig. 1B and 1C).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 6, wherein placing the robotic end effector in the first mode comprises rotating (see Para. 0024) at least one of the gripper arms to a stowed state (see Fig. 1A), and the rotating the at least one of the gripper arms (31 or 32) exposes at least part of the robotically actuated first grasping mechanism to engage an object (see Fig. 1B and 1C).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 1, further comprising one or more structures (31 and 31 comprise concave surface; see Fig. 1A-1C) configured to engage an object or a cart, and to push or pull the object or the cart (see Fig. 1A; the suction gripper (22) pulling the workpiece (5)).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 15, wherein the one or more structures (31 and 32, concave structures) are disposed on the robotically actuated second grasping mechanism (see Fig. 1A-1C).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: a lateral member (47) configured to be coupled to a robotic arm (see Para. 0030), wherein: the first element (22) is coupled to the lateral member (47) at a first distal end and (see Fig. 1A-1C) configured to engage mechanically with a first recess on a first side of an object (5) to be grasped (see Fig. 1A-1C); and the second element (31 and 32) is coupled to the lateral member (47) at a second distal end (See Fig. 1A-1C) opposite the first distal end and configured to engage mechanically with a second recess on a second side of the object (5) to be grasped (See Fig. 1A-1C).
PNG
media_image2.png
378
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 17, wherein the robotically actuated first grasping mechanism (22) is coupled to the lateral member (47) at a location between the first distal end and the second distal end (see Fig. 1A-1C).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 17, wherein: one or more of the first element (31) and the second element (32) is movable with respect to the lateral member (47); and the one or more of the first element (31) and the second element (32) is configured to move, via robotic control, between a deployed position corresponding to the second mode (See Fig. 1C) and a stowed position (see Fig. 1A) corresponding to the first mode (see Fig. 1A).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claim(s) 8, 10-12, 14, 28-29, 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ban (US 20100078953 A1) in view of Zevenbergen (US 9205558 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 1.
Ban fails to disclose wherein the robotically actuated first grasping mechanism includes a plurality of suction-based grasping mechanisms and one or more actuation mechanisms to apply suction to the plurality of suction-based grasping mechanisms.
However, Zevenbergen teaches wherein the robotically actuated first grasping mechanism includes a plurality of suction-based grasping mechanisms (404, 406, 408; see Fig. 4A) and one or more actuation mechanisms (140; see Col. 8, lines 10-15) to apply suction to the plurality of suction-based grasping mechanisms (see Col. 15, lines 15-30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the robotically actuated first gripper includes a plurality of suction-based grasping mechanisms and one or more actuation mechanisms to apply suction to the plurality of suction-based grasping mechanisms on the robotic end effector of Ban, as taught by Zevenbergen, in order to be able to activate suction cups to grip box (see Col. 15, lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 10, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 9.
Ban fails to disclose wherein a first subset of grasping mechanisms of the plurality of suction-based grasping mechanisms are configured to be controlled independently from a second subset of grasping mechanisms of the plurality of suction-based grasping mechanisms.
However, Zevenbergen teaches wherein a first subset of grasping mechanisms of the plurality of suction-based grasping mechanisms are configured to be controlled independently from a second subset of grasping mechanisms of the plurality of suction-based grasping mechanisms (see Col. 15, lines 15-30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein a first subset of grasping mechanisms of the plurality of suction-based grasping mechanisms are configured to be controlled independently from a second subset of grasping mechanisms of the plurality of suction-based grasping mechanisms on the robotic end effector of Ban as taught by Zevenbergen in order to determine how to position the gripper and/or which suction cups to initially activate to grip box (see Col. 15, lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 11, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 10.
Ban fails to disclose wherein the first subset of grasping mechanisms are controlled to grasp a first subset of one or more first objects, and the second subset of grasping mechanisms are controlled to grasp a second subset of the one or more first objects.
However, Zevenbergen teaches wherein the first subset of grasping mechanisms are controlled to grasp a first subset of one or more first objects, and the second subset of grasping mechanisms are controlled to grasp a second subset of the one or more first objects (see Col. 15, lines 15-30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the first subset of grasping mechanisms are controlled to grasp a first subset of one or more first objects, and the second subset of grasping mechanisms are controlled to grasp a second subset of the one or more first objects on the robotic end effector of Ban, as taught by Zevenbergen, in order to determine how to position the gripper and/or which suction cups to initially activate to grip box (see Col. 15, lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 12, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 8.
Ban fails to disclose wherein the one or more actuation mechanisms is configured to obtain one or more signals from a control computer, and to operate in response to at least one of the one or more signals, and the one or more actuation mechanisms is determined according to a grasping strategy for grasping one or more first objects in response to at least one of the one or more signals.
However, Zevenbergen teaches wherein the one or more actuation mechanisms (140) is configured to obtain one or more signals from a control computer (130), and to operate in response to at least one of the one or more signals (see Col. 6, lines 25-45); and the one or more actuation mechanisms is determined according to a grasping strategy for grasping one or more first objects in response to at least one of the one or more signals (see Col. 13, lines 45-60).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the one or more actuation mechanisms is configured to obtain one or more signals from a control computer, and to operate in response to at least one of the one or more signals, and the one or more actuation mechanisms is determined according to a grasping strategy for grasping one or more first objects in response to at least one of the one or more signals on the robotic end effector of Ban, as taught by Zevenbergen, in order to grip an object (see Col. 13, line 55).
Regarding claim 14, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 13.
Ban fails to disclose wherein the extendable cup is controlled based at least in part on at least one of the one more signals.
However, Zevenbergen teaches wherein the extendable cup (404 and 406; see Fig. 4b) is controlled based at least in part on at least one of the one more signals (sensors 454 and 456; see Abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the extendable cup is controlled based at least in part on at least one of the one more signals on the robotic end effector of Ban, as taught by Zevenbergen, in order to receive sensor data indicative of the vacuum pressure of the one or more active suction cups from the corresponding sensors (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 28, Ban discloses a robotic end effector (see Abstract) comprising: a lateral member (47; see Fig. 1A-1C) configured to be coupled to a robotic arm (see Para. 0018); a robotically actuated second gripper comprising first (31) and second gripper arms (32) coupled to opposite ends of the lateral member on either side of a central vertical axis (see Fig. 1A-1C); wherein the robotic end effector is operable in a first mode in which the second gripper is stowed to expose the set of suction-based grasping mechanisms (see Fig. 1A for first mode).
Ban fails to disclose a set of suction based grasping mechanisms configured to grasp one or more objects when a suction force is applied; a robotically controlled actuation mechanism configured to move at least a first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms to change a relative position of the first subset of suction- based grasping mechanisms and a second subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms.
However, Zevenbergen teaches a robotic end effector comprising: a set of suction based grasping mechanisms (400; see Fig. 4b) configured to grasp one or more objects when a suction force is applied (see Col. 14, lines 65-70); a robotically controlled actuation mechanism configured to move at least a first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms to change a relative position of the first subset of suction- based grasping mechanisms and a second subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms (see Col. 15, lines 15-35).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce the robotic end effector comprising: a set of suction based grasping mechanisms configured to grasp one or more objects when a suction force is applied; a robotically controlled actuation mechanism configured to move at least a first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms to change a relative position of the first subset of suction- based grasping mechanisms and a second subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms on the robotic end effector of Ban, as taught by Zevenbergen, in order to determine which suction cups to initially activate to grip box (see Col. 15, lines 15-35).
Regarding claim 29, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 28.
Ban fails to disclose wherein the set of suction based grasping mechanisms comprise a plurality of suction cups.
However, Zevenbergen teaches wherein the set of suction based grasping mechanisms comprise a plurality of suction cups (404-420; see Fig. 4b).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the set of suction based grasping mechanisms comprise a plurality of suction cups on the robotic end effector of Ben as taught by Zevenbergen in order to grip an object (see Col. 15, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 32, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 28.
Ban fails to disclose wherein the robotically controlled actuation mechanism is controlled based on one or more control signals received from a control computer.
However, Zevenbergen teaches wherein the robotically controlled actuation mechanism (140) is controlled based on one or more control signals received from a control computer (130) (see Col. 8, lines 10-30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the robotically controlled actuation mechanism is controlled based on one or more control signals received from a control computer on the robotic end effector of Ban as taught by Zevenbergen in order to grip an object (see Col. 13, line 55).
Regarding claim 33, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 32.
Ban fails to disclose wherein the control computer determines to change the relative position of the first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms and the second subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms based at least in part on a strategy for grasping a particular object.
However, Zevenbergen teaches wherein the control computer (130) determines to change the relative position of the first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms (406, 408, 412, 414, 418 and 420) and the second subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms (404, 410 and 416) based at least in part on a strategy for grasping a particular object (see Col. 15, lines 15-35).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the control computer determines to change the relative position of the first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms and the second subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms based at least in part on a strategy for grasping a particular object on the robotic end effector of Ban et al. as taught by Zevenbergen et al. in order to grip an object (see Col. 13, line 55).
Regarding claim 34, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 33.
Ban fails to disclose wherein the control computer determines to increase the distance between at least one of the first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms and at least one of the second subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms based at least in part on a determination that a size of the particular object exceeds a threshold distance.
However, Zevenbergen teaches wherein the control computer (130) determines to increase the distance between at least one of the first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms and at least one of the second subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms based at least in part on a determination that a size of the particular object exceeds a threshold distance (see Col. 3, lines 35-50).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the control computer determines to increase the distance between at least one of the first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms and at least one of the second subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms based at least in part on a determination that a size of the particular object exceeds a threshold distance on the robotic end effector of Ban, as taught by Zevenbergen, in order to grip an object (see Col. 13, line 55).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ban (US 20100078953 A1) in view of Zevenbergen (US 9205558 B1), further in view of Wagner (US 20210031380 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ban, in view of Zevenbergen, discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 8.
Ban, as modified by Zevenbergen, fails to disclose wherein the robotically actuated first grasping mechanism is configured to grasp a plurality of first objects at once.
However, Wagner teaches wherein the robotically actuated first grasping mechanism (92) is configured to grasp a plurality of first objects at once (see Fig. 6B, 6C and 6D).
PNG
media_image3.png
603
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the robotically actuated first grasping mechanism is configured to grasp a plurality of first objects at once on the robotic end effector of Ban, as modified by Zevenbergen, as taught by Wagner, in order to secure a plurality of objects (see Para. 0045).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ban (US 20100078953 A1) in view of Zevenbergen (US 9205558 B1), further in view of Park (KR 20090041138 A).
Regarding claim 13, Ban, in view of Zevenbergen, discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 12.
Ban, as modified by Zevenbergen, fails to disclose wherein at least a subset of the plurality of suction-based grasping mechanisms comprises an extendable suction cup.
However, Park teaches wherein at least a subset of the plurality of suction-based grasping mechanisms (11) comprises an extendable suction cup (see Abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein at least a subset of the plurality of suction-based grasping mechanisms comprises an extendable suction cup on the robotic end effector of Ban, as modified by Zevenbergen, as taught by Park, so that object is absorbed by each suction surface (see Page 4, Para. 9).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ban (US 20100078953 A1) in view of Smith (US 20220212345 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Ban discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 17.
Ban fails to disclose the robotic end effector further comprising a sensor configured to obtain information pertaining to a position of one or more of the first element or the second element.
However, Smith teaches an end effector further comprising a sensor (See Para. 0104) configured to obtain information pertaining to a position of one or more of the first element (116A) or the second element (116B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce robotic end effector further comprising a sensor configured to obtain information pertaining to a position of one or more of the first element or the second element on the robotic end effector of Ban, as taught by Smith, in order to sense information associated with each joint of each manipulator (see Para. 0104).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ban (US 20100078953 A1) in view of Pickard (US 20130015675).
Regarding claim 23, Ban discloses an autonomous tray handling robotic system comprising the robotic end effector as claimed in 1, wherein the system further comprises: each of the robots (see Para. 0030; not shown in figures) comprises a robotic arm (see Para. 0030; not shown in figures) and the robotic end effector (1) configured to grasp, move, and place the one or more first objects (5; see Fig. 1A-1C) without assistance from another robot.
Ban fails to disclose wherein a memory configured to store data indicating a set of output stacks to be assembled, each output stack including an associated set of objects; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to control operation of one or more robots, each of the one or more robots being configured to grasp, move, and place one or more first objects at a time, according to a plan, to iteratively pick one or more first objects from source stacks of objects and assemble the set of output stacks, including by building each output stack by successively placing on an output stack a first object or second object picked from one or more corresponding source stacks.
However, Pickard teaches wherein a memory (330) configured to store data (see Para. 0045) indicating a set of output stacks (141) to be assembled, each output stack (141) including an associated set of objects (150 and 156); and a processor (320) coupled to the memory (330) and configured to control operation of one or more robots (see Para. 0037), each of the one or more robots (110) being configured to grasp, move, and place one or more first objects (150 and 156) at a time, according to a plan (see Para. 0036), to iteratively pick one or more first objects (150 and 156) from source stacks (140) of objects and assemble the set of output stacks (141), including by building each output stack (141) by successively placing on an output stack a first object or second object picked from one or more corresponding source stacks (see Para. 0036).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein a memory configured to store data indicating a set of output stacks to be assembled, each output stack including an associated set of objects; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to control operation of one or more robots, each of the one or more robots being configured to grasp, move, and place one or more first objects at a time, according to a plan, to iteratively pick one or more first objects from source stacks of objects and assemble the set of output stacks, including by building each output stack by successively placing on an output stack a first object or second object picked from one or more corresponding source stacks on the robotic end effector of Ban, as taught by Pickard, in order to create a stack of objects grasped by the end effector (see Para. 0036-0037).
Claim(s) 20-21, 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ban (US 20100078953 A1) in view of Smith (US 20220212345 A1), further in view of Curhan (US 20200346792 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Ban, in view of Smith, discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 19.
Ban, as modified by Smith, fails to disclose wherein the sensor is a mechanical limit switch that is configured to obtain information indicative of whether the one or more of the first element or is the second element is in a deployed position corresponding to the second mode and a stowed position corresponding to the first mode.
However, Curhan teaches the sensor is a mechanical limit switch that is configured to obtain information indicative of whether the one or more of the first element or is the second element is in a deployed position corresponding to the second mode and a stowed position corresponding to the first mode (see Para. 0010 and Para. 0128).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce the sensor is a mechanical limit switch that is configured to obtain information indicative of whether the one or more of the first element or is the second element is in a deployed position corresponding to the second mode and a stowed position corresponding to the first mode on the robotic end effector of Ban, as modified by Smith, as taught by Curhan, in order to provide feedback that the tenting tool is at its intended extension (see Para. 0128).
Regarding claim 21, Ban, in view of Smith, discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 19.
Ban, as modified by Smith, fails to disclose wherein the sensor is a light sensor that is configured to obtain information indicative of whether the one or more of the first element or the element is in a deployed position corresponding to the second mode and a stowed position corresponding to first mode.
However, Curhan teaches the sensor is a light sensor that is configured to obtain information indicative of whether the one or more of the first element or the element is in a deployed position corresponding to the second mode and a stowed position corresponding to first mode (see Para. 0010).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the sensor is a light sensor that is configured to obtain information indicative of whether the one or more of the first element or the element is in a deployed position corresponding to the second mode and a stowed position corresponding to first mode on the robotic end effector of Ban, as modified by Smith, as taught by Curhan, in order to sense relative to the payload location, occupied or unoccupied, of the grasper (see Para. 0017).
Regarding claim 24, Ban discloses a method for a robotic end effector, comprising: determining, by one or more processors, to grasp an object using a robotic arm configured with a robotic end effector (see Abstract); determining a strategy for grasping the one or more objects (see Abstract).
Ban fails to disclose wherein a method comprising: determining to operate the robotic end effector in a first mode of operation or a second mode of operation; and controlling the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy, wherein: the robot end effector comprises a robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism configured to place the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode; the controlling the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy includes controlling the robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism to place the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode based at least in part on the strategy.
However, Curhan teaches a method for a robotic end effector comprising: determining to operate the robotic end effector in a first mode of operation or a second mode of operation (see Para. 0010); and controlling the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy, wherein: the robot end effector comprises a robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism configured to place the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode (see Para. 0010 and Para. 0101); the controlling the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy includes controlling the robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism to place the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode based at least in part on the strategy (see Para. 0010 and Para. 0101).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce method comprising: determining to operate the robotic end effector in a first mode of operation or a second mode of operation; and controlling the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy, wherein: the robot end effector comprises a robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism configured to place the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode; the controlling the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy includes controlling the robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism to place the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode based at least in part on the strategy on the robotic end effector of Ban, as taught by Curhan, in order to complete a pick for different polybagged articles (see Para. 0099).
Regarding claim 25, Ban discloses a computer program for determining, by one or more processors, to grasp an object using a robotic arm configured with a robotic end effector (see Abstract);
Ban fails to disclose a computer program determining a strategy for grasping the one or more objects, comprising: determining to operate the robotic end effector in a first mode of operation or a second mode of operation; and controlling the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy, wherein: the robot end effector comprises a robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism configured to place the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode; the controlling the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy includes controlling the robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism to place the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode based at least in part on the strategy.
However, Curhan teaches computer program determining a strategy for grasping the one or more objects, comprising: determining to operate the robotic end effector in a first mode of operation or a second mode of operation (see Para. 0010); and controlling the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy, wherein: the robot end effector comprises a robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism configured to place the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode (see Para. 0101); the controlling the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy includes controlling the robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism to place the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode based at least in part on the strategy (see Para. 0010 and Para. 0101).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce a computer program determining a strategy for grasping the one or more objects, comprising: determining to operate the robotic end effector in a first mode of operation or a second mode of operation; and controlling the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy, wherein: the robot end effector comprises a robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism configured to place the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode; the controlling the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy includes controlling the robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism to place the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode based at least in part on the strategy on the robotic end effector of Ban, as taught by Curhan, in order to perform the grasping action upon a object (see Para. 0009).
Regarding claim 26, Ban discloses a system for robotic end effector (see Abstract).
Ban fails to disclose a system comprising a robot arm configured with a robotic end effector comprising a robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism configured to place the robotic end effector in a first mode of operation or a second mode of operation; and a control computer configured to control the robot arm to grasp an object, wherein: the control computer is configured to: determine to grasp an object using a robotic arm configured with a robotic end effector; determine a strategy for grasping the one or more objects, comprising: determining to operate the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode; and control the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy, including controlling the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy includes controlling the robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism to place the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode based at least in part on the strategy.
However, Curhan teaches a system comprising a robot arm configured with a robotic end effector (see Abstract) comprising a robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism configured to place the robotic end effector in a first mode of operation or a second mode of operation (see Para. 0010 and Para. 0101); and a control computer (120) configured to control the robot arm to grasp an object (see Para. 0128), wherein: the control computer is configured to: determine to grasp an object using a robotic arm configured with a robotic end effector (see Para. 0128); determine a strategy for grasping the one or more objects (see Para. 0128), comprising: determining to operate the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode (see Para. 0010); and control the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy, including controlling the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy includes controlling the robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism to place the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode based at least in part on the strategy (see Para. 0010 and Para. 0101).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce a system comprising a robot arm configured with a robotic end effector comprising a robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism configured to place the robotic end effector in a first mode of operation or a second mode of operation; and a control computer configured to control the robot arm to grasp an object, wherein: the control computer is configured to: determine to grasp an object using a robotic arm configured with a robotic end effector; determine a strategy for grasping the one or more objects, comprising: determining to operate the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode; and control the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy, including controlling the robot end effector based at least in part on the strategy includes controlling the robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism to place the robotic end effector in the first mode or the second mode based at least in part on the strategy on the robotic end effector of Ban, as taught by Curhan, in order to perform the grasping action upon a object (see Para. 0009).
Regarding claim 27, Ban discloses a robotic end effector as claimed in claim 26, comprising: a robotically actuated second gripper (21, see Fig. 1B); a robotically actuated first gripper (20, see Fig. 1A) comprising a first element (31) and second element (32) positioned opposite each other on either side of a central vertical axis of the robotic end effector (see Fig. 1B), wherein the robotically actuated second gripper positioned between the first element and the second element (see Fig. 1B); and a robotically actuated retraction-extension mechanism (see Para. 0042) configured to place the robotic end effector in a first mode of operation (see Fig. 1C) in which the first gripper is positioned for use or a second mode of operation (see Fig. 1A) in which the second gripper is positioned for use.
PNG
media_image1.png
378
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 30-31 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ban (US 20100078953 A1) in view of Zevenbergen (US 9205558 B1), further in view of Curhan (US 20200346792 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Ban, in view of Zevenbergen, discloses the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 28.
Ban, as modified by Zevenbergen, fails to disclose wherein changing the relative position of the first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms and the second subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms changes a distance between at least one of the first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms and at least one of the second subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms.
However, Curhan teaches wherein changing the relative position of the first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms (130) and the second subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms (132) changes a distance between at least one of the first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms (130) and at least one of the second subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms (132) (see Para. 0010).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein changing the relative position of the first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms and the second subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms changes a distance between at least one of the first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms and at least one of the second subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms on the robotic end effector of Ban, as modified by Zevenbergen, as taught by Curhan, in order to perform a grasping action (see Para. 0009).
Regarding claim 31, Ban, in view of Zevenbergen, disclose the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 28.
Ban, as modified by Zevenbergen, fails to disclose wherein the robotically controlled actuation mechanism comprises a pneumatically controlled piston that changes the relative position of the first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms when actuated.
However, Curhan teaches wherein the robotically controlled actuation mechanism comprises a pneumatically controlled piston (see Para. 0122) that changes the relative position of the first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms (see Para. 0101) when actuated.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the robotically controlled actuation mechanism comprises a pneumatically controlled piston that changes the relative position of the first subset of suction-based grasping mechanisms when actuated on the robotic end effector of Ban, as modified by Zevenbergen, as taught by Curhan, in order to perform a grasping action (see Para. 0009).
Regarding claim 35, Ban, in view of Zevenbergen, disclose the robotic end effector as claimed in claim 28.
Ban, as modified by Zevenbergen, fails to disclose wherein the multi-mode robotic end effector is configured to use the robotic end effector of claim 28 in connection with operating the multi-mode robotic end effector in a first mode.
However, Curhan teaches wherein the multi-mode robotic end effector is configured to use the robotic end effector of claim 28 in connection with operating the multi-mode robotic end effector in a first mode (see Para. 0010).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the multi-mode robotic end effector is configured to use the robotic end effector of s claim 28 in connection with operating the multi-mode robotic end effector in a first mode on the robotic end effector of Ban, as modified by Zevenbergen, as taught by Curhan, in order to perform a grasping action (see Para. 0009).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHMAN A QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-6262. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/REHMAN A QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights