DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 1-20, and 22 are pending, independent claims 1 and 22 are amended, claim 21 are cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-9, filed 11/24/2025 with respect to U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20, 22 have been fully considered, and are considered persuasive. The rejection with respect to U.S.C. 101 of claims 1-20, and 22 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-16, filed 11/24/2025 with respect to U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20, 22 have been fully considered but they are not considered persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Kikuchi do not teach the newly amended limitations of the independent claims 1 and 22.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs the applicant to the rejection below.
Applicant argues that there is no reason to combine Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Kikuchi, as the references address different technical problems and provide no motivation for their combination to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, Zevenbergen teaches that the fault checking occurs instantaneously within a single gripping operation to identify an immediate issue like a leaking suction cup, while Kikuchi discloses using a "grasp success rate" for a strategic purpose of learning and selecting a better grasping posture for future operations to improve the robot's picking strategy.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Zevenbergen teaches that the fault checking occurs instantaneously within a single gripping operation to identify an immediate issue like a leaking suction cup, this action is repeatedly checked as the gripping operations being performed, see col. 3 line 63- col. 4 line 9. Making it completely reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kikuchi which using a "grasp success rate" for a strategic purpose of learning and selecting a better grasping posture for future operations to improve the robot's picking strategy to Zevenbergen. This combination would allow for the algorithm of Kikuchi to keep track of the gripping success rate of the suction cups prior to Zevenbergen’s system optimizing the current ability to grip the object in the moment. This combination would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to get multiple data points for Kikuchi software, allowing for the algorithm to improve future grasping strategy, and providing the most optimized configuration for picking up the objects, without forgoing the immediate need of grasping an object that Zevenbergen can provide.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 19-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zevenbergen et al. (US 9205558 B1) hereinafter Zevenbergen in view of Bollegraaf et al. (EP 1829621 A1) hereinafter Bollegraaf and further in view of Kikuchi (JP2017047505A).
Regarding Claim 1, Zevenbergen teaches a manipulator moveable within a working area and a suction gripper connected to the manipulator (Fig. 2A where the suction gripper is on the end of 104, and the manipulator moveable is 102) and configured to selectively grip an object in the working area (col 1 line 26-27 “to cause the gripper to grip the object.”, see in Fig 2A-2C that the mount is in a working area); and a controller (col 1 line 33-34 “a control system”) ; determining one or more other operational parameters of the suction gripper over a plurality of suction gripper operations (col 2 line 22-23 “determines the vacuum pressure of the corresponding one of the suction cups.”); and detecting one or more faults with at least one of the suction gripper or the waste sorting robot by distinguishing between a degradation in robot performance based on a correlation between the gripping rate and a variation in the type of objects based on a correlation between the gripping rate and the one or more other operational parameters (claim 7 “identifying at least one leaking suction cup that has a drop in vacuum pressure when the at least one valve corresponding to the at least one leaking suction cup is open (i.e., degradation of robot);”, where there has been a distinguishment between degradation (total failure of a suction cup) and if it is the variation of the objects), controlling the robot in response to the detected one or more faults (col 4 lines 15-20 “if the sensor data indicates repeated poor performance of a particular suction cup (e.g., the top left suction cup) and/or the control system often deactivates the particular suction cup while picking objects, the suction cup may be flagged to be replaced by a new suction cup.” Where the deactivating of the faulty is controlling the robot).
Zevenbergen does not teach the object gripped is waste; determining a gripping rate of suction gripper operations over a plurality of suction gripper operations in dependence of a signal received from a suction gripper sensor.
Bollegraaf teaches the object gripped is waste ([0020] “pick-up located items of the waste material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the object gripped is waste, to a sorting robot as described in Zevenbergen for the purpose of using a sorting robot in waste removal. This is advantageous because allows sorting a fraction of the items of waste material on a conveyor without disturbing the items not sorted out to such an extent that renewed detection of a next fraction of items would not be required before automatic sorting of a next fraction of items or a next item of the same fraction out of the waste material on the conveyor can be carried out, (e.g., [0005] Bollegraaf).
Zevenbergen and Bollegraaf do not teach determining a gripping rate over a plurality of operations in dependence of a signal received from a sensor.
Kikuchi teaches configured to determining a gripping rate over a plurality of operations in dependence of a signal received from a sensor [0006] “graspability determination method capable of increasing the grasp success rate while increasing the number of graspable parts.” Where [0033] “the detection unit 5 detects the position / attitude of the part (i.e., sensor readings)(1). Next, the control device 4 selects the grasping position / posture with a high grasping success rate using the identifying device, and controls the robot arm 2 so as to pick the component based on the detected position / posture of the component ( 2).” And further [0070] “in the gripping propriety determination method according to the present embodiment, a plurality of sample data correlating the three-dimensional point cloud data included in the hand passing region with the success or failure of gripping of the gripping object by the hand 21 is acquired”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the gripping rate discussed in Kikuchi to the suction device error system discussed in Zevenbergen and Bollegraaf for the purpose of knowing how well the suction arm can grip the objects it is assigned. It is advantageous because it can to determine whether or not the hand can hold the object to be gripped when gripping a plurality of bulky gripping objects by a hand of a robot arm (e.g., Kikuchi, [0005]).
Regarding Claim 22, Zevenbergen teaches a manipulator moveable within a working area and a suction gripper connected to the manipulator (Fig. 2A where the suction gripper is on the end of 104, and the manipulator moveable is 102) and configured to selectively grip an object in the working area (col 1 line 26-27 “to cause the gripper to grip the object.”, see in Fig 2A-2C that the mount is in a working area); and a controller (col 1 line 33-34 “a control system”) configured to; determine one or more other operational parameters of the suction gripper over a plurality of suction gripper operations (col 2 line 22-23 “determines the vacuum pressure of the corresponding one of the suction cups.”); and detecting one or more faults with at least one of the suction gripper or the waste sorting robot by distinguishing between a degradation in robot performance based on a correlation between the gripping rate and a variation in the type of objects based on a correlation between the gripping rate and the one or more other operational parameters (claim 7 “identifying at least one leaking suction cup that has a drop in vacuum pressure when the at least one valve corresponding to the at least one leaking suction cup is open (i.e., degradation of robot);”, where there has been a distinguishment between degradation (total failure of a suction cup) and if it is the variation of the objects), controlling the robot in response to the detected one or more faults (col 4 lines 15-20 “if the sensor data indicates repeated poor performance of a particular suction cup (e.g., the top left suction cup) and/or the control system often deactivates the particular suction cup while picking objects, the suction cup may be flagged to be replaced by a new suction cup.” Where the deactivating of the faulty is controlling the robot).
Zevenbergen does not teach the object gripped is waste; determining a gripping rate over a plurality of operations in dependence of a signal received from a sensor.
Bollegraaf teaches the object gripped is waste ([0020] “pick-up located items of the waste material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the object gripped is waste, to a sorting robot as described in Zevenbergen for the purpose of using a sorting robot in waste removal. This is advantageous because allows sorting a fraction of the items of waste material on a conveyor without disturbing the items not sorted out to such an extent that renewed detection of a next fraction of items would not be required before automatic sorting of a next fraction of items or a next item of the same fraction out of the waste material on the conveyor can be carried out, (e.g., [0005] Bollegraaf).
Zevenbergen and Bollegraaf do not teach determining a gripping rate over a plurality of operations in dependence of a signal received from a sensor.
Kikuchi teaches configured to determining a gripping rate over a plurality of operations in dependence of a signal received from a sensor ([0006] “graspability determination method capable of increasing the grasp success rate while increasing the number of graspable parts.” Where [0033] “the detection unit 5 detects the position / attitude of the part (i.e., sensor readings)(1). Next, the control device 4 selects the grasping position / posture with a high grasping success rate using the identifying device, and controls the robot arm 2 so as to pick the component based on the detected position / posture of the component ( 2).” And further [0070] “in the gripping propriety determination method according to the present embodiment, a plurality of sample data correlating the three-dimensional point cloud data included in the hand passing region with the success or failure of gripping of the gripping object by the hand 21 is acquired”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the gripping rate discussed in Kikuchi to the suction device error system discussed in Zevenbergen and Bollegraaf for the purpose of knowing how well the suction arm can grip the objects it is assigned. It is advantageous because it can to determine whether or not the hand can hold the object to be gripped when gripping a plurality of bulky gripping objects by a hand of a robot arm (e.g., Kikuchi, [0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, Zevenbergen Bollegraaf and Kikuchi teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zevenbergen and Bollegraaf do not teach wherein determining the gripping rate of the gripper operations comprises determining that the gripping rate of the gripper operations drops below a predetermined threshold.
Kikuchi further teaches wherein determining the gripping rate of the gripper operations comprises determining that the gripping rate of the gripper operations drops below a predetermined threshold ([0027] “The point distribution in the hand passing region is used as the feature vector. Therefore, a two-dimensional histogram using h (p i) and d (p i) is defined as follows. In the following definition, binwidth is a bin width, and bin_h and bin_d are bin upper limit values (a threshold for unconditionally determining grasping failure) of each axis. Distance from the side: min ((d (p i) / binwidth), bin - d)), where the feature vector = (distance from the bottom: min ((h (p i) / binwidth), bin h)” where this mathematical space is the failure zone or the region that lies outside the success threshold.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the gripping rate discussed in Kikuchi to the suction device error system discussed in Zevenbergen and Bollegraaf for the purpose of knowing how well the suction arm can grip the objects it is assigned. It is advantageous because it can to determine whether or not the hand can hold the object to be gripped when gripping a plurality of bulky gripping objects by a hand of a robot arm (e.g., Kikuchi, [0005]).
Regarding Claim 3, Zevenbergen Bollegraaf and Kikuchi teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zevenbergen and Bollegraaf do not teach wherein the gripping rate of the gripper operations is determined over a plurality of successive gripper operations.
Kikuchi teaches wherein the gripping rate of the gripper operations is determined over a plurality of successive gripper operations ([0006] “graspability determination method capable of increasing the grasp success rate while increasing the number of graspable parts.” And further [0070] “in the gripping propriety determination method according to the present embodiment, a plurality of sample data correlating the three-dimensional point cloud data included in the hand passing region with the success or failure of gripping of the gripping object by the hand 21 is acquired”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the gripping rate discussed in Kikuchi to the suction device error system discussed in Zevenbergen and Bollegraaf for the purpose of knowing how well the suction arm can grip the objects it is assigned. It is advantageous because it can to determine whether or not the hand can hold the object to be gripped when gripping a plurality of bulky gripping objects by a hand of a robot arm (e.g., Kikuchi, [0005]).
Regarding Claim 4, Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Kikuchi teach the limitations of claim 3.
Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf do not teach wherein the gripping rate of the suction gripper operations is an average gripping rate over a predetermined number of previous suction gripper operations.
Kikuchi teaches wherein the gripping rate of the gripper operations is an average gripping rate over a predetermined number of previous suction gripper operations ([0070] “in the gripping propriety determination method according to the present embodiment, a plurality of sample data correlating the three-dimensional point cloud data included in the hand passing region with the success or failure of gripping of the gripping object by the hand 21 is acquired Then, it is assumed that the smaller the value of the distance h (p i), distance d (p i) and n, the higher the grasp success rate is, and based on the sample data and the distances h (p i) and d (p i) A discriminator for judging whether or not to grasp the gripping target is generated from the calculated feature vector and judges whether or not the gripping object can be gripped by the hand using the generated discriminator. As a result, even when an obstacle is present in the hand passing region S, it is not immediately judged that the part cannot be grasped but judged whether or not the gripping is possible using the discriminator.” Where the rate is calculated based on a plurality of sample data, i.e., takes all the data into account via some form of averaging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the gripping rate discussed in Kikuchi to the suction device error system discussed in Zevenbergen and Bollegraaf for the purpose of knowing how well the suction arm can grip the objects it is assigned. It is advantageous because it can to determine whether or not the hand can hold the object to be gripped when gripping a plurality of bulky gripping objects by a hand of a robot arm (e.g., Kikuchi, [0005]).
Regarding Claim 5, Zevenbergen Bollegraaf and Kikuchi teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zevenbergen Bollegraaf and Kikuchi do not explicitly teach wherein the average gripping rate of the gripper operations is determined over a previous 10, 50 or 100 gripper operations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrives at “the average gripping rate of the gripper operations is determined over a previous 10, 50 or 100 gripper operations.” Using the teaches of Kikuchi. Kikuchi implicitly teaches “the average gripping rate of the gripper operations is determined over a previous 10, 50 or 100 gripper operations.” In [0070] “in the gripping propriety determination method according to the present embodiment, a plurality of sample data correlating the three-dimensional point cloud data included in the hand passing region with the success or failure of gripping of the gripping object by the hand 21 is acquired Then, it is assumed that the smaller the value of the distance h (p i), distance d (p i) and n, the higher the grasp success rate is, and based on the sample data and the distances h (p i) and d (p i) A discriminator for judging whether or not to grasp the gripping target is generated from the calculated feature vector and judges whether or not the gripping object can be gripped by the hand using the generated discriminator. As a result, even when an obstacle is present in the hand passing region S, it is not immediately judged that the part cannot be grasped but judged whether or not the gripping is possible using the discriminator.” Where the rate is calculated based on a plurality of sample data, i.e., takes all the data into account via some form of averaging), where it would appear that one of ordinary skill in the art could achieve the claimed number of data points through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 II A.) by allowing the machine to continue to try to grip objects before running calculations.
Regarding Claim 6, Zevenbergen Bollegraaf and Kikuchi teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zevenbergen further teaches wherein the method further comprises generating an alert indicating the one or more faults (col 19 line 8-10 “In some examples, sensor data from the in-line sensors may be used by the control system to flag (i.e., generate an alert) one or more suction cups of the suction gripper for replacement. For instance, a particular suction cup may be identified that consistently underperforms due to compared to other suction cups used by the suction gripper”, where the underperforming is in reference to the vacuum pressure col 17 lines 17-20 “More specifically, the sensor data received from the in-line sensors may indicate the current vacuum pressure levels of active suction cups 406, 408, 412, 414, 418, and 420.” ).
Regarding Claim 7, Zevenbergen Bollegraaf and Kikuchi teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Zevenbergen further teaches wherein the method further comprises determining a type of the one or more faults in dependence on the gripping rate of the suction gripper operations and the one or more other operational parameters and including the type of the one or more faults in the alert (col 19 line 8-10 “In some examples, sensor data from the in-line sensors may be used by the control system to flag (i.e., generate an alert) one or more suction cups of the suction gripper for replacement. For instance, a particular suction cup may be identified that consistently underperforms due to compared to other suction cups used by the suction gripper”, where the underperforming can be in reference to the vacuum pressure col 19 line 16-25 “a control system may cycle through individual suction cups and/or groups of suction cups in succession to test fix leaking suction cups. For instance, a control algorithm may initially involve positioning the gripper over an object to be picked up with all the suction cups in an off state. Then, each suction cup may be turned on in a serial sequence to see if the suction cup is leaking (i.e., leaking is determined from drop in grip rate and pressure). For instance, a control system may activate each suction cup in sequence, wait for equilibrium to determine if the suction cup is leaking, and then deactivate the suction cup if it is leaking” ).
Regarding Claim 8, Zevenbergen Bollegraaf and Kikuchi teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Zevenbergen further teaches wherein determining the one or more other operational parameters of the suction gripper is performed in dependence of a determination that the operations has dropped below a predetermined threshold (claim 20 “identifying one or more suction cups with a vacuum pressure below a threshold level of vacuum pressure.”).
Zevenbergen and Bollegraaf do not teach gripping rate of gripper.
Kikuchi teaches gripping rate of gripper ([0006] “graspability determination method capable of increasing the grasp success rate while increasing the number of graspable parts.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the gripping rate discussed in Kikuchi to the suction device error system discussed in Zevenbergen and Bollegraaf for the purpose of knowing how well the suction arm can grip the objects it is assigned. It is advantageous because it can to determine whether or not the hand can hold the object to be gripped when gripping a plurality of bulky gripping objects by a hand of a robot arm (e.g., Kikuchi, [0005]).
Regarding Claim 9, Zevenbergen Bollegraaf and Kikuchi teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zevenbergen further teaches wherein determining the one or more other operational parameters of the suction gripper comprises determining one or more pressure parameters of the suction gripper (col 17 line20-24 “The vacuum pressures levels are depicted in FIG. 4C as bars 476, 478, 482, 484, 488, and 490, which may represent different levels of vacuum response of each of the corresponding suction cups 406, 408, 412, 414, 418, and 420.”) .
Regarding Claim 19, Zevenbergen Bollegraaf and Kikuchi teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zevenbergen further teaches wherein the method comprises determining that the one or more faults are one or more of: malfunctioning sensors, insufficient maximum vacuum pressure, the suction gripper is blocked, the suction gripper is incorrectly calibrated, the suction gripper is damaged, insufficient air supply pressure, or a build-up of material inside the material (the suction gripper is damaged claim 6 “received sensor data to identify one or more suction cups for replacement”) , insufficient air supply pressure (claim 7 “identifying at least one leaking suction cup that has a drop in vacuum pressure when the at least one valve corresponding to the at least one leaking suction cup is open;”)
Regarding Claim 20, Zevenbergen Bollegraaf and Kikuchi teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zevenbergen further teaches the signal received from the suction gripper sensor is used to determine the one or more other operational parameters of the suction gripper (claim 2 “using the respective vacuum pressures of the at least two suction cups to predict an amount of gripping force that will be applied by the suction gripper to the object when the suction gripper has a plurality of different combinations of open valves;” and claim 12 “determining a total amount of force applied by the suction gripper to the object based on the received sensor data;”) .
Zevenbergen and Bollegraaf do not teach the signal received from the gripper sensor is used to determine the gripping rate of gripper operations.
Kikuchi teaches wherein the signal received from the gripper sensor is used to determine the gripping rate of gripper operations ([0006] “graspability determination method capable of increasing the grasp success rate while increasing the number of graspable parts.” Where [0033] “the detection unit 5 detects the position / attitude of the part (i.e., sensor readings)(1). Next, the control device 4 selects the grasping position / posture with a high grasping success rate using the identifying device, and controls the robot arm 2 so as to pick the component based on the detected position / posture of the component ( 2).” And further [0070] “in the gripping propriety determination method according to the present embodiment, a plurality of sample data correlating the three-dimensional point cloud data included in the hand passing region with the success or failure of gripping of the gripping object by the hand 21 is acquired”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the gripping rate discussed in Kikuchi to the suction device error system discussed in Zevenbergen and Bollegraaf for the purpose of knowing how well the suction arm can grip the objects it is assigned. It is advantageous because it can to determine whether or not the hand can hold the object to be gripped when gripping a plurality of bulky gripping objects by a hand of a robot arm (e.g., Kikuchi, [0005]).
Claim(s) 10, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zevenbergen Bollegraaf and Kikuchi in view of Chevalier (FR 3093330 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Zevenbergen Bollegraaf and Kikuchi teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zevenbergen Bollegraaf and Kikuchi do not teach wherein determining the one or more other operational parameters of the suction gripper comprises determining a maximum vacuum pressure of the suction gripper.
Chevalier teaches wherein determining the one or more other operational parameters of the suction gripper comprises determining a maximum vacuum pressure of the suction gripper ([0066] “Thus, when picking up the part, the vacuum generator 11 operates at full compressed air flow until it reaches the upper vacuum threshold, or cut-off threshold, S1 (i.e., maximum vacuum pressure of the suction gripper). In other words, the control signal C is in an active state (signal = 1). The high threshold S1 is higher than the threshold S3 which corresponds to a sufficient vacuum value allowing the gripping suction cup to grasp the part.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the use of a maximum pressure threshold as discussed in Chevalier to the suction gripper fault detector discussed in Zevenbergen Bollegraaf and Kikuchi for the purpose of having a value of pressure that is the maximum of the device. This is advantageous because it provides a method for controlling a suction cup for gripping an object by depression, implementing means for generating a vacuum inside said suction cup, and means for measuring the vacuum level inside said suction cup, delivering a signal for measuring the vacuum level and means for analyzing said measurement signal producing a control signal for said vacuum generation means (e.g., [0021] Chevalier).
Regarding Claim 12, Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf, Kikuchi and Chevalier teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Kikuchi do not teach wherein determining the one or more other operational parameters of the suction gripper comprises determining that the maximum vacuum pressure is outside a maximum vacuum pressure operating range.
Chevalier teaches wherein determining the one or more other operational parameters of the suction gripper comprises determining that the maximum vacuum pressure is outside a maximum vacuum pressure operating range ([0023] “ when said vacuum level is higher than a predetermined cut-off threshold, during which vacuum generation is interrupted.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the use of a maximum pressure threshold as discussed in Chevalier to the suction gripper fault detector discussed in Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Kikuchi for the purpose of having a value of pressure that is the maximum of the device. This is advantageous because it provides a method for controlling a suction cup for gripping an object by depression, implementing means for generating a vacuum inside said suction cup, and means for measuring the vacuum level inside said suction cup, delivering a signal for measuring the vacuum level and means for analyzing said measurement signal producing a control signal for said vacuum generation means (e.g., [0021] Chevalier).
Regarding Claim 18, Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Kikuchi teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zevenbergen teaches wherein detecting the one or more faults with at least one of the suction gripper or the waste sorting robot is in dependence of a determination operations drops below a predetermined threshold (claim 20 “identifying the at least one suction cup by identifying one or more suction cups with a vacuum pressure below a threshold level of vacuum pressure.”)
Zevenbergen and Bollegraaf do not teach gripping rate of gripper.
Kikuchi teaches gripping rate of gripper ([0006] “graspability determination method capable of increasing the grasp success rate while increasing the number of graspable parts.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the gripping rate discussed in Kikuchi to the suction device error system discussed in Zevenbergen and Bollegraaf for the purpose of knowing how well the suction arm can grip the objects it is assigned. It is advantageous because it can to determine whether or not the hand can hold the object to be gripped when gripping a plurality of bulky gripping objects by a hand of a robot arm (e.g., Kikuchi, [0005]).
Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Kikuchi do not teach and at least one of a minimum air supply pressure or maximum vacuum pressure is outside an operational range over a plurality of gripping operations.
Chevalier teaches at least one of a minimum air supply pressure or maximum vacuum pressure is outside an operational range over a plurality of gripping operations ([0066] “Thus, when picking up the part, the vacuum generator 11 operates at full compressed air flow until it reaches the upper vacuum threshold, or cut-off threshold, S1. In other words, the control signal C is in an active state (signal = 1). The high threshold S1 is higher than the threshold S3 which corresponds to a sufficient vacuum value allowing the gripping suction cup to grasp the part.” Where because S1 turns off vacuum pressure it is outside the range of operation, maximum vacuum pressure is outside an operational range over a plurality of gripping operations ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the use of a maximum pressure threshold as discussed in Chevalier to the suction gripper fault detector discussed in Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Kikuchi for the purpose of having a value of pressure that is the maximum of the device. This is advantageous because it provides a method for controlling a suction cup for gripping an object by depression, implementing means for generating a vacuum inside said suction cup, and means for measuring the vacuum level inside said suction cup, delivering a signal for measuring the vacuum level and means for analyzing said measurement signal producing a control signal for said vacuum generation means (e.g., [0021] Chevalier).
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Kikuchi in view of Meyer et al. (US 2018/0369996 A1) hereinafter Meyer.
Regarding Claim 14, Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Kikuchi teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Kikuchi do not teach wherein determining the one or more other operational parameters of the suction gripper comprises determining a minimum air supply pressure supplied to the suction gripper.
Meyer teaches wherein determining the one or more other operational parameters of the suction gripper comprises determining a minimum air supply pressure supplied to the suction gripper ([0011] “Expediently, a positive pressure limit value of 0.05 bar to 0.15 bar and in particular in the range of 0.1 bar is chosen.” Where 0.05bar is the minimum flow rate, [0009] “which were time-guided or based on air flow rate the invention evaluates the actual pressure established in the suction gripper unit connected to the positive pressure source when generating the ejector pulse, so that the system immediately receives feedback on the events on the side of the suction gripper during the build-up of the ejector pulse”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the minimum air supply pressure discussed in Meyer to the suction gripper fault detector discussed in Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Kikuchi for the purpose of having a minimum required airflow through the suction gripper. This is advantageous because If the pulse duration is too long and the air flow rate to high, on the other hand, the blow-off process can have the result that the ejected object or even other objects in the area is/are blown out of the assigned repository and the objects cannot be deposited in a repeatable manner (e.g. [0004], Meyer).
Regarding Claim 16, Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf, Kikuchi and Meyer teaches the limitations of claim 14.
Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Kikuchi do not teach wherein determining the one or more other operational parameters of the suction gripper comprises determining that the minimum air supply pressure is outside a minimum air supply pressure operational range.
Meyer teaches wherein determining the one or more other operational parameters of the suction gripper comprises determining that the minimum air supply pressure is outside a minimum air supply pressure operational range ([0004] “the set pulse duration of the ejector pulse is too short and the resulting air flow rate correspondingly low, the vacuum in the suction gripper is not cancelled completely, and the object continues to adhere to the suction gripper.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the minimum air supply pressure discussed in Meyer to the suction gripper fault detector discussed in Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Kikuchi for the purpose of having a minimum required airflow through the suction gripper. This is advantageous because If the pulse duration is too long and the air flow rate to high, on the other hand, the blow-off process can have the result that the ejected object or even other objects in the area is/are blown out of the assigned repository and the objects cannot be deposited in a repeatable manner (e.g. [0004], Meyer).
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 11, 13, 15, and 17, the closest prior arts Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf, Kikuchi, Meyer and Chevalier teach several limitations.
Regarding Claim 11, Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Chevalier teaches the limitations of claim 10.
However, Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Chevalier fail to disclose wherein determining the maximum vacuum pressure of the suction gripper comprises determining a highest maximum vacuum pressure over a predetermined number of previous suction gripper operations and there are no motivations absent the applicant’s own disclose, to modify Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Chevalier in the manner required by the pending application’s claims.
Regarding Claim 13, Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Chevalier teaches the limitations of claim 12.
However, Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Chevalier fail to disclose wherein the maximum vacuum pressure operating range of the maximum vacuum pressure is between 600 to 800 mbar and there are no motivations absent the applicant’s own disclose, to modify Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Chevalier in the manner required by the pending application’s claims.
Regarding Claim 15, Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Meyer teaches the limitations of claim 14.
However, Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Meyer do not disclose wherein determining the minimum air supply pressure comprises determining an average minimum air supply pressure over a predetermined number of previous sorting operations and there are no motivations absent the applicant’s own disclose, to modify Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Meyer in the manner required by the pending application’s claims.
Regarding Claim 17, Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Meyer teaches the limitations of claim 16.
However, Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Meyer do not disclose wherein the minimum air supply pressure operational range of the minimum air supply pressure is between 5 to 7 bar and there are no motivations absent the applicant’s own disclose, to modify Zevenbergen, Bollegraaf and Meyer in the manner required by the pending application’s claims.
Since claims 11, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 the claims are not allowed.
Conclusion
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 Emma L. Alexander whose telephone number is (571)270-0323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/EMMA ALEXANDER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863