DETAILED ACTION
This application includes independent claims 1 and 9 and dependent claims 2-8 and 10-20.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 9-20, 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 “low-friction” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-friction” 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. Claim 11 recites “the one or more processors” without proper antecedent basis in the claim. Additionally, the claims recite “a bottom surface” of the/an item. The bottom surface of could be any surface since items could have a defined “bottom” at the time the item was created and that surface could be oriented in any direction based upon how the item was positioned at any defined location. Therefore, the term “bottom surface” as it is used in the claims is subject to a plurality of plausible claim constructions.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, 14, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujiwara et al. (JP 2019111615 A).
Regarding independent claim 1, Fujiwara discloses a robotic end effector, comprising: an end effector body (10) having an operative side (see Fig. 3, generally at 11); a pull force gripper (11) disposed on the operative side of the end effector body; and a first end effector support structure (15) that is connected to the end effector body and extends from the end effector body in a direction that is orthogonal to the operative side of the end effector body.
Regarding independent claim 9, Fujiwara discloses a robotic system for moving items, comprising: a robotic arm (4) comprising an end effector, the end effector comprising: an end effector body (10) having an operative side (see Fig. 3, generally at 11); a pull force gripper (11) disposed on the operative side of the end effector body; and a support structure (15) that is connected to the end effector body and extends from the end effector body in a direction that is orthogonal to the operative side of the end effector body; and a processor (see at least para. 9) configured to: receive an indication of an item to be moved (see at least paras. 0047); determine a plan to move the item with the robotic arm (see at least paras. 0015 and 0048-0050); and cause the robotic arm to move the item according to the plan, the plan including grasping the item on a side surface with the pull force gripper and engaging a bottom surface of the item with the support structure (see at least paras. 0048-0050); and a memory (5) configured to store the plan.
Regarding the dependent claims 2-8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 20, Fujiwara discloses the first end effector support structure is disposed to provide support to an item grasped by the end effector by applying an upwards force on a bottom surface of the item when the item is grasped on a side substantially orthogonal to the bottom surface (see at least para. 0036). The first end effector support structure comprises a low-friction surface that engages a bottom surface of an item when being grasped by the end effector (depending on the material of the item, Fujiwara discloses a low-friction surface). Fujiwara further comprises: a second end effector support structure (16a) that is connected to the end effector body and extends from the end effector body in a direction that is orthogonal to both the operative side and a direction in which the first end effector support structure extends from the operative side (see thickness direction of 16a…length of 16a is parallel with operative side, width is parallel to the direction in which first end effector support structure extends from the operative side, thickness direction is orthogonal to both). The end effector is controlled to: engage an item on a side surface with the pull force gripper and engage the item on an orthogonal side surface with the first end effector support structure; and apply a rotational force to cause the item to rotate in a manner so that the orthogonal side surface engaged with the first end effector support structure corresponds to a bottom surface of the item (see Figs. 2, 11 and 12…the bottom surface of the item is always engaged by the first end effector support structure). The end effector is controlled to apply a rotational force to an item when the end effector is being controlled to perform a place operation (see Figs. 2, 11 and 12); and the rotational force causing the item to rotate to be placed in a placement orientation that is different from a movement orientation in which the item is moved by a robotic arm while grasped by the end effector (see Figs. 2, 11 and 12). The first end effector support structure is rotatably connected to the end effector body, and the end effector comprises a support structure actuator that causes the first end effector support structure to move the first end effector support structure to grasp an item according to a predetermined plan (see at least para. 0015). Fujiwara further comprises one or more second end effector support structures connected to the end effector body and movable to engage different parts of an item. Fujiwara further comprises a communication interface configured to receive, from one or more sensors (3) deployed in a workspace, sensor data indicative of a current state of the workspace, the workspace comprising one or more items to be moved by the robotic arm. One or more processors are further configured to: identify the item within a workspace of the robotic system (see at least para. 0010); determine the side surface of the item on which the pull force gripper is to grasp the item (see at least paras. 0019 and 0050); and determine the bottom surface of the item (see at least paras. 0036 and 0050). Determining the plan to move the item comprises determining a pick type to be implemented to grasp the item (see at least paras. 0052-0053). The pick type comprises a front-on pick type according to which the pull force gripper engages the item on a front surface and the support structure supports a bottom surface (see Fig. 5). The robotic system comprises a second robotic arm (14b); and causing the robotic arm to move the item according to the plan includes collaboratively controlling the robotic arm and the second robotic arm to grasp the item at different locations and to collaboratively move the item along a predetermined path (see Figs. 11 and 12).
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) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al. (JP 2019111615 A) in view of Wicks (US 20190344447). Fujiwara discloses a robotic system for moving items, comprising: a robotic arm (4) comprising an end effector, the end effector comprising: an end effector body (10) having an operative side (see Fig. 3, generally at 11); a pull force gripper (11) disposed on the operative side of the end effector body; and a support structure (15) that is connected to the end effector body and extends from the end effector body in a direction that is orthogonal to the operative side of the end effector body; and a processor (see at least para. 9) configured to: receive an indication of an item to be moved (see at least paras. 0047); determine a plan to move the item with the robotic arm (see at least paras. 0015 and 0048-0050); and cause the robotic arm to move the item according to the plan, the plan including grasping the item on a side surface with the pull force gripper and engaging a bottom surface of the item with the support structure (see at least paras. 0048-0050); and a memory (5) configured to store the plan. One or more processors are further configured to: identify the item within a workspace of the robotic system (see at least para. 0010); determine the side surface of the item on which the pull force gripper is to grasp the item (see at least paras. 0019 and 0050); and determine the bottom surface of the item (see at least paras. 0036 and 0050). Fujiwara discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose that the side surface and the bottom surface are determined based at least in part on a labelling of item sides based on a normalized labelling process that ensures that an item side facing a certain direction is consistently labeled with a corresponding side label. However, Wicks discloses a similar system in which the side surface and the bottom surface of an item are determined based at least in part on a labelling of item sides based on a normalized labelling process that ensures that an item side facing a certain direction is consistently labeled with a corresponding side label (see at least Fig. 16) for the purpose of ensuring that a label is at a same location on all items. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have the side surface and the bottom surface determined based at least in part on a labelling of item sides based on a normalized labelling process that ensures that an item side facing a certain direction is consistently labeled with a corresponding side label, as disclosed by Wicks, for the purpose of ensuring that a label is at a same location on all items.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al. (JP 2019111615 A). Fujiwara discloses a robotic system for moving items, comprising: a robotic arm (4) comprising an end effector, the end effector comprising: an end effector body (10) having an operative side (see Fig. 3, generally at 11); a pull force gripper (11) disposed on the operative side of the end effector body; and a support structure (15) that is connected to the end effector body and extends from the end effector body in a direction that is orthogonal to the operative side of the end effector body; and a processor (see at least para. 9) configured to: receive an indication of an item to be moved (see at least paras. 0047); determine a plan to move the item with the robotic arm (see at least paras. 0015 and 0048-0050); and cause the robotic arm to move the item according to the plan, the plan including grasping the item on a side surface with the pull force gripper and engaging a bottom surface of the item with the support structure (see at least paras. 0048-0050); and a memory (5) configured to store the plan. Fujiwara further discloses a conveyance structure comprising: a belt (24) that is controlled to move the item within a workspace within an item pickup zone (see Fig. 2); and one or more conveyance support structures (see at least para. 0020) disposed at the item pickup zone, wherein the one or more conveyance support structure provide support for the item while the end effector is controlled to grasp the item. The one or more conveyance support structures are configured to rotate around an axis (A-2) that is substantially parallel with a width of the belt (see at least para. 0020). The one or more conveyance support structures comprises a first conveyance support structure and a second conveyance support structure (see Fig. 2 and para. 0020); and the first conveyance support structure and the second conveyance support rotate around the axis independently (see Fig. 2 and para. 0020). During a pick operation: the belt is controlled to move the item within the pickup zone at which at least one of the first conveyance support structure and the second conveyance support structure is extended (see Fig. 2); the end effector is controlled to grasp the item on a side surface with the pull force gripper and engage a bottom surface of the item with the support structure (see Fig. 2); and at least one of the first conveyance support structure and the second conveyance support structure is configured in a retracted position when the end effector is positioned to engage the bottom surface of the item with the support structure (see Fig. 2). Fujiwara discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose that the belt is controlled to move the item to an item pickup zone. Rather, Fujiwara discloses that the belt is controlled to move the item from an item pickup zone. However, moving items on a belt to an item pickup zone is notoriously known in the art for the purpose of stacking items. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have the belt controlled to move the item to the item pickup zone for the purpose of stacking the items.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakayama (US 10,226,865) and Schmatz et al. (US 6,652,014) disclose robotic end effectors having a pull force grippers and end effector support structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653