Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendments filed February 2, 2026. Claims 1, 25, and 26 are amended. Claims 28-30 are introduced. Claims 1-30 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome the specification objections regarding the paragraph number and content. The specification objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to Figure 11 have overcome the drawing objection. The drawing objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 25, and 26 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s arguments are only directed to the claim amendments, which add new limitations to the claims and are addressed below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7-12, 15-26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US10954081B1 (Sun) from the IDS in view of US20200324974A1 (Gorman) and US20210141870A1 (McGregor).
Regarding claims 1, 25, and 26 respectively, Sun discloses a robotic system, a method, and a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions that comprise the following:
a communication interface configured to receive image data associated with a workspace,
Sun, column 5, lines 22-26, “In various embodiments, control computer 212 includes a vision system used to discern individual items and each item’s orientation based on image data provided by image sensors, including in this example 3D cameras 214 and 216.”
wherein the workspace includes a source of items to be placed singly each in a respective corresponding location on a segmented conveyance structure adjacent to at least a portion of the source of items; and
See Fig. 2A. Sun discloses in column 5, lines 27-31, “the robotic system to determine strategies to grasp the individual items and place each in a corresponding available defined location for machine identification and sorting, such as a partitioned section of segmented conveyor 208.” In the same figure, chute 206 represents the source of items.
one or more processors coupled to the communication interface and configured to: receive an indication that a given first item in the source of items is too heavy to be picked up by a first robotic arm the one or more processors are configured to control, wherein the indication Is determined based at least in part on sensor data;
Sun, column 21, lines 35-40, “If the robot decides that packages are hard to pick (e.g., too clumped up to pick, or stuck in a corner or edge, has sharp/pointy features that could damage suction cups of end effector, too heavy, etc.), it moves out of the way, engages safety mode, and triggers a message to a human operator to come and assist it.”, where Sun discloses successful grasps are determined by sensor data (column 9, lines 27-33).
determine, based at least in part on the image data, a plan to use the first robotic arm to push the given first item onto an associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure as the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure moves past the source of items;
While Sun discloses determining, based at least in part on the image data, a plan to use the first robotic arm to push the given first item onto an associated corresponding location (column 17, lines 5-10), Sun does not disclose an associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure as the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure moves past the source of items.
However, from a similar field of endeavor, Gorman discloses an automated conveyance system for transporting package from a storage conveyor to the transport conveyor (Gorman, Abstract). Specifically, Gorman discloses the use of robotic pushers (Gorman, [0189], “a robotic pusher”) to push a given item onto an associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure (Gorman, [0189], transport conveyor 110X) as the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure moves past the source of items (Gorman, [0189], “Once a subset of one or more of the items 114 in the list have been placed on conveyor(s) 110 (e.g., as many as can be accommodated in a single move), processing system 200 controls transport conveyor(s) 110X to deliver each placed item to a single pick-up shelf 132 in destination system 130.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to combine the system of Gorman and Sun as modifying the pushing of ungraspable objects disclosed by Sun would benefit from pushing ungraspable objects onto conveyance segments by increasing efficiency and minimizing package downtimes.
evaluate whether the pushing of the given first item into the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure according to the plan is predicted to succeed based at least in part on the image data and one or more item attributes, wherein evaluating comprises:
simulating the pushing motion based on the image data and the one or more item attributes, including at least one of a weight, size, shape, or surface friction of the given first item; and
While Sun discloses utilizing image data and one or more item attributes (column 9, lines 27-31), pushing of the given first item into an associated corresponding location, Sun does not disclose simulating the pushing motion based on the image data and the one or more item attributes, including at least one of a weight, size, shape, or surface friction of the given first item into an associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure.
However, from a similar field of endeavor, McGregor discloses creation of a dynamic digital twin within a simulation platform of a mechanical model (McGregor, Abstract). Specifically, McGregor discloses simulating pushing motion (McGregor, [0075], “The simulation component 306 can also simulate predicted collisions between items of products, or between products and machinery (e.g., collisions with a pusher arm or robot arm due to a mis-timed control sequence).”) based on the image data (McGregor, [0108], “image input device”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to combine the system of McGregor to the system of Sun as simulating possible motions would beneficially provide insights resulting from the action without consequence of acting on the real first item
computing a probability of successful placement onto the associated corresponding location without misalignment or failure to transfer;
While Sun does not explicitly disclose computing a probability of successful placement onto the associated corresponding location without misalignment or failure to transfer, Sun discloses computing probability of successful placements onto the associated location of grasping strategies. In view of the rationales above regarding determining, evaluating, and simulating pushing an ungraspable object above, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to compute the probability of a successful placement onto the associated corresponding location without misalignment or failure to transfer as Sun discloses performing such for another method of transfer (see Fig.5A of Sun), where adapting the computation for a push would provide the same benefits of the computation for a grasp. Computing the probabilities in the context of the simulated actions prior to performing them would allow for optimization of the actions of the arm to minimize chance for errors.
in response to determining that the pushing of the given first item into the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure is expected to succeed, control the first robotic arm to implement the plan; and
In light of the combination of Sun in view of Gorman and McGregor, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try and implement a plan if it is expected to succeed and it has a reasonable expectation of success.
in response to determining that the pushing of the given first item into the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure is not expected to succeed, autonomously control the first robotic arm to divert the given first item to a separate destination location for items not expected to be successfully moved to the associated corresponding location.
In light of the rationale above regarding “evaluate whether the pushing of the given item …” and the return or unpickable item chute (column 21, lines 46-48) disclosed by Sun, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try pushing any objects with an unsuccessful evaluation to the return chute as a push to be performed by a robot returning an unfavorable probability of success below indicates high risk that may cause further difficulties such as mishandling of the package. Regarding claim 7, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the plan includes slowing the segmented conveyance structure as the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure approaches.
See Fig. 5C of Sun. In column 14, lines 42-44 of Sun, “At 564, the conveyor speed and local station speeds are adjusted to maximize collective throughput net or errors. At 566, conveyor slots are allocated to respective stations to maximize net throughput.” In column 6, lines 63-65, of Sun’s disclosure, throughput is defined as “Conveyor movement and/or speed controlled as needed to avoid empty locations and maximize robot productivity”. Given maximizing throughput is accomplished through the control of conveyor speeds as empty spots for items approach, this falls under routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 8, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the plan includes computing and controlling one or more of a start time, a force, and a duration of the pushing so that the first item is pushed onto the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure.
Pushing an object towards the associated corresponding location is discussed in the last limitation of the section regarding claim 1. Regarding the control of a start time, force, and duration of pushing, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, that all of these related variables must be considered when having a system push an object as any form of motion can be described a sum of forces over a period of time. Given that the goal would be to push an object onto its segment, one of ordinary skill could, for example, reason out that higher force applied would permit a lower duration or a lower start time as the displacement of an object of some initial starting position to a final position can be calculated through variables whose values depend on each other.
Regarding claim 9, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the plan includes positioning or reorienting the first item before pushing the first item onto the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure.
Sun, column 13, lines 35-41, “The chute/conveyor is fed, e.g., by humans, robots, and/or both, and items may arrive in clumps. With each addition to the flow at the input end, items may slide down or flow down/ along the chute or conveyor toward an end at which one or more robotic arms are provided to perform singulation, e.g., by grasping individual items and moving each one by one to a corresponding single item location on an output conveyor.”, where sliding an object down a chute/conveyor would be positioning the object for any form of manipulation.
Regarding claim 10, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the plan includes controlling a source conveyor comprising the source items.
Sun, column 3, lines 24-30, “A robotic system to perform singulation and/or sortation is disclosed. In various embodiments, a robotic system includes a robotic arm and end effector used to pick items from a source pile/flow and place them on a segmented conveyor or similar conveyance to be sorted and routed for transport to a downstream (e.g., ultimate addressed/physical) destination.”
Regarding claim 11, with all of the limitations of claim 10, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the source conveyor is controlled to advance the first item to an end or edge of the source items nearest to the segmented conveyance structure.
Sun, column 13, lines 33-41, “In various embodiments, items arrive via a chute and/or conveyor. The chute/conveyor is fed, e.g., by humans, robots, and/or both, and items may arrive in clumps. With each addition to the flow at the input end, items may slide or flow down/along the chute or conveyor toward an end at which one or more robotic arms are provided to perform singulation, e.g., by grasping individual items and moving each one by one to a corresponding single item location on an output conveyor.”, where the singulation stations are fed an input of objects, disclosed to be chute or conveyor. In the case of a conveyor, one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, would find it obvious to use said conveyor to advance objects further to the output segmented conveyor (embodiment shown in Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 12, with all of the limitations of claim 10, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the source conveyor is controlled to assist the pushing the item onto the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure.
Sun, column 5, lines 13-19, “In this example, items are fed into chute 206 from an intake end 210. For example, one or more human and/or robotic workers may feed items into intake end 210 of chute 206, either directly or via a conveyor or other electro-mechanical structure configured to feed items into chute 206.”, where the chutes assist by moving the objects forward and hold them an area that allows the robot to singulate and act.
Regarding claim 15, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the segmented conveyance structure has individual segments each identified by a segment identifier.
Sun, column 19, lines 4-14, “The challenges with picking objects from piles (which may be flowing) and placing them on to a singulation conveyor is that the singulation conveyor needs to associate a package barcode with each package in a conveyor belt slot. Based on the package’s orientation in the bulk pile from which the robot is picking, the robot might find a situation where the barcode actually faces down. In some embodiments, a robotic singulation system as disclosed herein may be used to flick or otherwise flip an item into position in which the barcode or other label routing information faces up.”
Regarding claim 16, with all of the limitations of claim 15, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein downstream routing or handling of items on the segmented conveyance structure is performed based at least in part on an association of segment identifiers and one or more of (i) an item identifier or (ii) one or more item attributes.
Sun, column 19, lines 47-49, “In some embodiments, a multi-axis barcode (or other) scanner or sensor is positioned downstream on the conveyor belt 1008, one that can scan barcodes on the top or bottom.”
Regarding claim 17, with all of the limitations of claim 16, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the one or more item attributes include a destination or a class of service.
Sun, column 20, line 66 – column 21, line 3, “Downstream, the routing information determined by scanning the item's label locally, at the robotic singulation station, is used to sort/route the item to an intermediate or final destination determined based at least in part on the routing information.”
Regarding claim 18, with all of the limitations of claim 15, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the segments are bins, receptacles, or tilt trays.
Sun, column 3, lines 30-31, “In some embodiments, picked items are placed singly into nearby bins or other receptacles. In some embodiments, multiple robots are coordinated to maximize collective throughput.”
Regarding claim 19, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
obtain image data during implementation of the plan;
See Fig. 5A. The process takes image data 502 to then identify the object at 504, calculate probabilities at 506, and finally plan at 508.
determine whether the plan is to be adjusted based at least in part on the image data; and update the plan based at least in part on the image data.
Sun, column 11, lines 31-33, “At 508, the item-specific grasp strategies and probabilities determined at 506 are used to determine a plan to grasp, move, and place items according to the probabilities.”
Regarding claim 20, with all of the limitations of claim 19, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the plan is updated while the first item is being pushed by at least the first robotic arm.
While Sun does not disclose updating the plan while first item is being pushed by at least the first robotic arm, Sun does disclose an iterative grasp process in Fig. 9. Specifically, updating the plan by changing the force during an attempted grasp. Given the robot’s capability to adjust plans during operation and having pushing being part of its operation, it would then be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expand the update during operation feature to other aspects of the disclosure. This would then allow for more operations to potentially resolve themselves such as the one in Fig. 9 or, if implemented specifically with Fig. 9 in mind, allow for more areas of being stuck or failing to show themselves to operators, providing better data on system failures.
Regarding claim 21, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the plan includes:
grasping a second item before pushing the first item onto the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure;
pushing the first item onto the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure; and
in response to the first item being pushed onto the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure, placing the second item in another corresponding location.
While Sun does not disclose grasping a second item and then proceeding to push a first item, Sun does disclose acting on two objects sequentially. In column 16, lines 14-21, “In some embodiments, a robot may use vision, depth, or other sensors to identify two graspable packages that are judged by the robot’s control algorithm to be far enough apart so as not to be able to interfere with each other’s picks (by destabilizing the pile and causing it to flow, or by hitting the other package etc.). Instead of repeating the sensor processing pipeline after picking the first package, the robot may directly proceed to pick the second package.
Given that Sun discloses a way of identifying an object’s attributes (column 21, line 35-40, in particular weight), the act of pushing it in response to the detection (column 21, lines 46-48), and a system that can detect ([0108]), plan, and act on two different items (column 16, lines 1-5), it would then be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to adapt these systems to work together in situations of an object that is ungraspable. As the system can identify and track the positions of a first and second item to grasp and has the means to hold a second item that does not fall under being too heavy, it would be obvious to change the system to first identify two objects and, in response to an first object that is too heavy to pick up, proceed the grab the second one and push the first to the conveyor segment while finally placing the second on another segment.
Regarding claim 22, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine, while moving the first item, whether a movement of the first item to the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure is expected to succeed; and in response to determining that the movement of the first item is not expected to succeed,
updating the plan for moving the first item.
See Fig. 9 of Sun. These steps represent a logical flowchart equivalent to the applicant’s claims. Given an established plan, the process of acting on a first item is attempted at 902, evaluated at 904 for any success, and, assuming a failure to act the object, the process enters another logical step 908. At this step, the determination is performed, where an expectation of succeed continues to step 910 and any expectations of failure lead to 912, where the plan becomes to attempt to act on another item 914 or to leave the operation to a human 916.
While the plan listed by Sun is specific to a grasp strategy for a grip robot rather than a push robot, one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, would understand this control feedback loop can apply to all forms of motions, including pushing. Given that all motion can be described by a summation of forces over a period of time, one of ordinary skill would also understand that the difference between pushing and gripping is effectively the location of applied external forces, where the former is an effective force parallel to some surface geometry and the latter is an effective force orthogonal to some surface geometry.
With the rationales in claim 1 and 21 regarding how one of ordinary skill could adapt the system disclosed by Sun to include a pushing robot, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to integrate Fig. 9 into a robot that has the capability to push an object as well, where 902 would include a push strategy based off the same principles of applying a force in a specific direction, where the location of the application of force would differ from that of picking an object up.
Regarding claim 23, with all of the limitations of claim 22, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the updating the plan includes one or more of:
controlling at least the first robotic arm to push the first item with greater force;
controlling at least the first robotic arm to push the first item faster;
controlling at least the first robotic arm to push the first item for a longer period of time; and
controlling the segmented conveyance structure to slow a speed at which the segmented conveyance structure is moving.
See the rationale of claim 7 regarding slowing the segmented conveyance structure. Regarding the above limitations of the first robotic arm, see Fig. 9 and the rationale of claim 22 regarding how the figure would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to a pushing robot.
Regarding claim 24, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine whether the first item is expected to be successfully pushed to the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure; and
in response to determining that the first item is not expected to be successfully pushed to the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure,
determining to push the first item to a separate destination location for items the robotic system is not expected to be able to induct using at least the first robotic arm.
As stated in the section regarding claim 1, the first robot arm of Sun is capable of determining an ungraspable object and pushing an object to a designated area that holds all of the ungraspable objects. In Fig. 9, Sun discloses a control feedback loop that can adjust the policy by changing the force being applied to an object. Given that the only differences between the action of pick and place versus pushing are contact point location and magnitude of force, and in light of it being obvious to robot could push the object onto the conveyor belt (see section regarding claim 1), it would also be further obvious to adapt the feedback control loop to act accordingly to function with pushing. The system would then be adapted to act on more than just only liftable objects and could still request assistance if there exist an object that cannot be pushed onto the segmented conveyor nor to a designated area.
Regarding claim 28, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein evaluating whether the pushing of the given item into the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure according to the plan is predicted to succeed comprises:
determining that the pushing is expected to succeed if the probability of successful placement exceeds a predefined threshold.
In light of the rationale of claim 1 regarding the limitation “evaluating whether the pushing …”, Sun further discloses determining success of grasp by a probability exceeding a predefined threshold (column 16, line 63 – column 17, line 2, “For example, the system may have attempted to determine grasp strategies for items in the pile, but determined that due to flow speed, clutter, orientation, overlap, etc., there is no item for which a grasp strategy having a probability of success greater than a prescribed minimum threshold is currently available.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to further modify the pushing system with the already disclosed determination of Sun as a threshold for high likelihoods of success would permit for more successful actions.
Regarding claim 29, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, prior to controlling the first robotic arm to implement the plan:
detect one or more obstructing items in a path between the given first item and the associated corresponding location based on the image data; and
Sun, column 16, line 63 – column 17, line 2, “For example, the system may have attempted to determine grasp strategies for items in the pile, but determined that due to flow speed, clutter, orientation, overlap, etc., there is no item for which a grasp strategy having a probability of success greater than a prescribed minimum threshold is currently available.”
control the first robotic arm or a second robotic arm to relocate the one or more obstructing items to clear the path, wherein relocating includes picking and placing the one or more obstructing items to at least one of
a position further back in the source of items, or
Sun, column 17, lines 5-19, “For example, the robotic arm may be used to gently nudge, pull, push, etc. an item or multiple items into different positions in the pile. After each nudge, the system may reevaluate, e.g., by re-computing the 3D view of the scene to determine if a viable grasp strategy has become available. If it is determined at 746 that a grasp (or multiple grasps each for a different item) has become available, then autonomous operation is resumed at 750. Otherwise, if after a prescribed number of attempts to change the pile/flow state a viable grasp strategy has not become available, then at 748 the system obtains assistance, e.g., from another robot and/or a human worker, the latter via teleoperation and/or manual intervention such as shuffling items in the pile and/or manually picking/placing items until the system determines that autonomous operation can be resumed.”, where shuffling items would result in a position further back in the source of items.
Regarding claim 30, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the indication is determined based at least in part on one or more of:
a torque or current utilization associated with a motor driving a source conveyor on which the given first item is located;
a weight measured by a sensor associated with the source of items;
a failure of a threshold number of attempts by the first robotic arm to grasp and lift the given first item; and
an item attribute determined via computer vision analysis of the image data, including
a size,
shape, or
label indicating a weight exceeding a predefined threshold.
Sun discloses that the indication that a given first item in the source of items is too heavy to be picked up by a first robotic arm is at least a weight measured by a sensor associated with the source of items (column 18, lines 6-12).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US10954081B1 (Sun) from the IDS in view of US20200324974A1 (Gorman) and US20210141870A1 (McGregor) also in further view of US20190099879A1 (Haddadin).
Regarding claim 2, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the plan includes picking or placing one or more other items within proximity of the first item to clear a path for moving the first item, and moving the first item after the one or more other items have been cleared from the path.
While Sun does not disclose picking items to clear a path, Haddadin, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a robotic system that can “automatically remove the objects from the process line according to the invention, return them to the process line after processing and, if necessary, hit or push them back along the process line so that they can move along the process line again automatically.” (Haddadin, [0040]).
One of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the rationale of claim 1 and prior to the effective filing date, would adapt the system of Sun with the removal process of Haddadin. As the chute may not be as rigid as a guided process line, objects of varying geometry may cause unexpected blockages or a variation of the order at which it was entered into the chute. This implementation would allow the robotic arm of Sun to properly clear any obstacles made by other objects in the way, permitting the next required object to be pushed forward.
Regarding claim 3, with all of the limitations of claim 2, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the picking or placing the one or more other items within proximity of the first item includes moving the one or more other items to one or more segments on the segmented conveyance structure.
Sun, column 16, lines 1-5, “In various embodiments, the system may take a photo and identify two (or more) objects to pick. The system picks and moves the first one; then, instead of doing a full scene re-compute to find a next package to pick, the system simply looks at whether the second package is disturbed.”
Given the disclosure originally by Sun describes a pick and place robot, the above citation to [0108] discloses the ability to track a second object along with a first object, and the robot disclosed by Sun is also capable of pushing objects to a designated location, it would be obvious then to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to continually track a first object whose weight is too heavy for the robotic arm with a second object that can be moved out of the way. As stated earlier in the section regarding claim 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the issue in not clearing the path of the package to be pushed. Furthermore, adapting the system in this manner would system output versus generally putting them elsewhere, improving on possible downtimes.
Regarding claim 4, with all of the limitations of claim 2, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the picking or placing the one or more other items within proximity of the first item includes respectively moving the one or more other items to locations further back in the source of items.
This is a different embodiment of the disclosure of the rationale provided in claim 2 as moving an object out of the way of a first object to be pushed towards the conveyor belt would include moving an object towards the end of the source of objects away from the belt.
Regarding claim 5, with all of the limitations of claim 2, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the picking or placing the one or more other items within proximity of the first item includes respectively caching the one or more other items in a staging area.
Sun, column 12, lines 59-65, “In some embodiments, when the segmented conveyor is full due to some bottlenecks in the downstream sortation process, a robotic singulation system as disclosed herein may pre-singulate one or more packages, for example inside its corresponding chute or in a nearby staging area, while keeping tracking of the poses of each pre-singulated package.”
Regarding claim 6, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the plan includes clearing a path for moving the first item, and pushing the first item from behind towards the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure.
Regarding clearing a path for moving a first item, see the rationale regarding claim 2 and pushing an object towards the associated corresponding location is discussed in the last limitation of the section regarding claim 1.
Claims 13-14 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US10954081B1 (Sun) from the IDS in view of US20200324974A1 (Gorman) and US20210141870A1 (McGregor) also in further view of US20210229281A1 (Natarajan).
Regarding claim 13, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the plan includes controlling a second robotic arm to cooperatively push the first item with the first robotic arm.
While Sun do not disclose the use of a second robotic arm cooperatively with a first robotic arm, Natarajan, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses the use of collaborative multi-robot control. Specifically, Natarajan discloses in [0033], “The basic interaction primitives 404 may be any actions that involve two or more robots jointly working together. Thus, the interaction primitives 404 may be a subset of action primitives 402 (e.g., actions that involve two or more robots), or may be separately generated or stored. The interaction primitives 404 may include joint object lift, joint push, joint insert, joint transport, joint hand-off (e.g., handing off an object from one robot to another), collision avoidance, or the like.”
Given that the disclosure by Sun can be reasonably modified with disclosed systems to push objects and Natarajan’s disclosure regarding the multiple robots collaborating for a goal, one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, would find it obvious to combine these two disclosures. The combination would reduce the number of difficult objects to move as overall physical motion capability of the system would be increased by the additional robot working with the first robot.
Regarding claim 14, with all of the limitations of claim 13, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the first robotic arm and the second robotic arm are controlled to push the first item together.
See citation to Natarajan in section regarding claim 13.
Regarding claim 27, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robotic system further comprises:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to control the first robotic arm and a second robotic arm to cooperatively push the given time into the associated corresponding location on the segmented conveyance structure, each robotic arm applying force at a distinct contact location on the item in a coordinated manner to align the item with the associated corresponding location.
In light of the rationale of claim 13, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to cooperatively push and apply force at distinct contact locations in a coordinated manner as there are finite number of combinations of applied force locations to try with respect to the object’s geometry to minimize the distance of the object to the corresponding location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAEWOOK JUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM..
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, Wade Miles can be reached on (571) 270-7777. 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.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656