Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3,8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furrer (US 2020/0024853 (US 11,739,542)) in view of Yamamoto (US 2017/0181341).
Re claim 1, Furrer teaches a robotic arm 120 picking an object from a picking surface and place an object in a sorting destination comprising: an end effector 130 with a suction device (gripping element) 140 and a support element 590,596, wherein the support element [0059] is capable of retracting to a first position and extending to a second position, wherein in the first position, the support element is disposed some distance away from the gripping element and does not interfere with the operation of the suction device, and wherein in the second position, the support element is disposed near the suction device and may lift or support an object engaged by the suction device.
Furrer does not but Yamamoto (see figures) does teach retractable support surface (support element) 11,22 wherein the retractable support surface is capable of retracting to a first position and extending to a second position, wherein in the first position, the retractable support surface is disposed some distance away from suction device 13, and does not interfere with the operation of the suction device, and is not in physical contact with the object to be engaged by the suction device, and wherein in the second position, the retractable support surface is disposed near the suction device, is in physical contact with the object engaged by the suction device, and lifts or supports the object engaged by the suction device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Furrer as claimed in order to allow the capability of greater flexibility in gripping and positioning objects to handle a greater variety of objects, tasks and gripping requirements in varied situational needs.
Re claim 2, Furrer (figure 1) teaches the robotic arm is configured to orient the end effector such that the gripping element points in a predominantly downward direction during a picking operation.
Re claim 3, Furrer teaches the robotic arm is further configured to retract the support element to the first position during the picking operation.
Re claim 8, Furrer teaches the end effector further comprises a distance sensor (150, [0045], figures 1,5).
Claims 4-5,10,13-16,18,19,21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furrer (US 2020/0024853 (US 11,739,542)) in view of Yap (US 2020/0016746) and Yamamoto (US 2017/0181341).
Re claim 4, Furrer teaches the ability (figures 3A,3B, [0056]) to orient the end effector such that the gripping element points in a predominantly upward direction during a placing operation but does not explicitly mention doing so. Yap teaches ([0002,0264,0268,0276,0299], figures 1-4,8) a pick and place robot 102 that identifies, tilts and orients objects as needed to move them between varied shaped / oriented locations, the holding angle is optimized to balance the gripping force and placement motion constraints and reduce likelihood of objects falling ([0267]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Furrer as claimed in order to optimize movements & orient as needed to match target locations and reduce likelihood of objects falling.
Re claim 5, Furrer & as already modified teaches the robotic arm is further configured to extend the support element to the second position (Para. [0059], the composite joint 590 may include at least three parallel linear actuators 527, 528, 529: hence, the composite joint 590 is capable of extending using the three parallel linear actuators 527, 528, 529: Fig. 4) and disengage the gripping element when the support element is extended into the second position during the placing operation (Para. [0065], when the vacuum source is switched-on, the suction cups 140 adhere to an upper surface of the object 101 to be placed; Para. [0068], the connections of the suction cups 140 to a vacuum source are switchable individually or in groups using mechanical means; hence, the vacuum source may be deactivated when the three parallel linear actuators 527, 528, 529 are extended).
Re claims 10,13-16,19, Furrer teaches a method and apparatus performed by a robotic arm 120 to pick an object from a picking surface and place an object in a sorting destination, comprising the steps of: identifying an object disposed on the picking surface as a pick candidate; gripping the pick candidate with a suction device (gripping element) 140 of an end effector 130 attached to the robotic arm; extending a support element 590,596 to engage and support the object while the gripping element is released ([0049,0065,0068], also see claim 5 details); and delivering the object from the support element to the sorting destination.
Furrer does not but Yamamoto (see figures) does teach retractable support surface (support element) 11,22 wherein the retractable support surface is capable of retracting to a first position and extending to a second position, wherein in the first position, the retractable support surface is disposed some distance away from suction device 13, and does not interfere with the operation of the suction device, and is not in physical contact with the object to be engaged by the suction device, and wherein in the second position, the retractable support surface is disposed near the suction device, is in physical contact with the object engaged by the suction device, and lifts or supports the object engaged by the suction device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Furrer as claimed in order to allow the capability of greater flexibility in gripping and positioning objects to handle a greater variety of objects, tasks and gripping requirements in varied situational needs.
Furrer teaches the ability (figures 3A,3B, [0056]) to orient the end effector such that the gripping element points in a predominantly upward / upside down orientation (substantially 180 degrees, etc.) during a placing operation but does not explicitly mention doing so. Yap teaches ([0002,0264,0268,0276,0299], figures 1-4,8) a pick and place robot 102 that identifies, tilts and orients objects as needed (including any angle range) to move them between varied shaped / oriented locations (sorting location having a substantially vertical cabinet with sorting bins [0264,0268]), the holding angle is optimized to balance the gripping force and placement motion constraints and reduce likelihood of objects falling ([0267]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Furrer as claimed in order to orient as needed to match target locations and reduce likelihood of objects falling as wells as to optimize movements to improve speeds & safety & with use varied type sorting / transfer arrangements.
Re claim 18, Furrer & as already modified appears to teach the picking surface may comprise any one of a table, a flat conveyor belt, or an inclined carousel surface. For sake of completeness / clarity that it is explicitly teaching the claimed surface type, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Furrer as claimed in order to expand the utility of the system for use with more types of surfaces.
Re claim 21, Furrer teaches the end effector further comprises a distance sensor (150, [0045], figures 1,5).
Claims 6,11-12,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furrer (US 2020/0024853 (US 11,739,542)) in view of Yap (US 2020/0016746), Yamamoto (US 2017/0181341) and Lipson (US 2013/0106127A).
Re claims 6,11-12,17, Furrer does not mention the robotic arm is further configured to conduct the placing operation by a dynamic, tossing movement of one or more of the robotic arm, end effector, and support element that results in tossing an object from the support element into a target sort location.
Lipson is in the field of robot gripping and releasing apparatuses ([0004]) and teaches wherein the robotic arm is further configured to
conduct the placing operation by a dynamic movement of one or more of the robotic arm, end effector, and support element that results in
tossing an object from the support element into a target sort location ([0115], the positive pressure apparatus also applied up to 90%
less force on target objects, and demonstrated an increase in placement accuracy, which enabled a new throwing capability for the gripper.
This ability to throw objects may be useful for tasks like, but not limited to, sorting objects into bins in a factory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to modify Furrer as claimed to include wherein the robotic arm is further configured to conduct the placing operation by a dynamic, tossing, momentum movement of one or more of the robotic arm, end effector, and support element that results in tossing an object from the support element into a target sort location as taught by Lipson, the motivation for doing so
would have been to improve efficiency and thereby increase placement accuracy for sorting objects into bins, thus reducing time needed to
correct errors during sorting ([0115]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furrer (US 2020/0024853 (US 11,739,542)) in view of Yamamoto (US 2017/0181341) and Wang (CN110539321A).
Re claim 9, Furrer does teach the distance sensor disposed in the middle of the suction head of the suction device. Wang teaches (figure 3, abstract, [0037]) a robot with a distance sensor 302 disposed in the middle of the suction head of the suction device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Furrer as claimed in order to protect the sensor from potential damage from external items such as falling items from above / sides.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furrer (US 2020/0024853 (US 11,739,542)) in view of Yap (US 2020/0016746), Yamamoto (US 2017/0181341) and of Wang (CN110539321A).
Re claim 22, Furrer does teach the distance sensor disposed in the middle of the suction head of the suction device. Wang teaches (figure 3, abstract, [0037]) a robot with a distance sensor 302 disposed in the middle of the suction head of the suction device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Furrer as claimed in order to protect the sensor from potential damage from external items such as falling items from above / sides.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Monforte teaches an end effector with suction device 68 and retractable support surface 44,46 working separately or in unison (abstract).
Jeong and Leidenfrost (abstract, figures) teach similar end effectors with suction devices and retractable support surfaces.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued the amended claims are allowable as Furrer did not teach a retractable support surface as claimed.
However, as shown above it is already known to have the combination of a suction device and retractable support surface as claimed and it would have been obvious to have modified Furrer as claimed at least to allow the capability of greater flexibility in gripping and positioning objects to handle a greater variety of objects, tasks and gripping requirements in varied situational needs.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th & alternating T & F 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652