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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 15-34 are pending in this application. Claims 1-14 were canceled by preliminary amendment and claims 15-34 are new.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25-29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 25-27 and 30 recite the terms “movement agent” and “controlling agent”; these terms do not appear at all in the instant specification. While it seems plausible that these entities may correspond to applicant’s “movement means” and “control means” of its paragraph [0043] and fig. 1, this correspondence is not definitely determinable. One obstacle to this mapping (which if permissible would change this rejection into a mere objection for informality), is that the term of art “agent” conventionally means an aspect of software, especially AI software, but applicant’s movement means (identified in fig. 1 using reference character 9) is a robot arm and not software. Similarly, applicant’s control means, a featureless box labeled 11 in fig. 1, is plainly a physical structure of some kind (being an attached component of a figure that depicts a device), and could be guessed to be a controller or PLC, i.e. a general purpose computer. Whatever it is (and this is a point of indefiniteness in itself) the control means is plainly not a software agent. We note as an aside that the obvious amendment (if this mapping suggestion is correct) of using the supported terms “movement means” and “control means” in the claims will result in the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the interpretation of the terms and may be problematic in the absence of a clear explanation of “control means” in the specification. Claims 28-29 inherit the rejection of claims 25-27.
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 25-29 and 30 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.
Per the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above, these claims recite the unsupported terms “movement agent” and “controlling agent”. As noted, there is a possible identification of these agents with applicant’s “movement means” and “control means” respectively in the specification. This identification is itself not certain enough to rescue the claims from indefiniteness. But even if the identification could be surely performed, the claims would still be indefinite because applicant’s control means 11 in fig. 1 is a featureless box that is never disclosed to be a particular device or kind of device. The term “means”, if present in a claim, begs for interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but the specification does not state this control means can even be exemplified as a controller or PLC (as one might guess based on the word “control”), and so the claims are indefinite for this reason as well. Claims 28-29 inherit the rejection of claims 25-27.
For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we suppose applicant’s “movement agent” to be a mechanical device such as a robot arm capable of moving a suction head, and we suppose applicant’s “controlling agent” to be a controller or other form of general purpose computer.
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.
Claims 15-17, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Secibovic, Kavir, WO 2020056437 (hereinafter Secibovic).
Regarding claim 15,
Secibovic discloses:
A method (claim 14) for automated movement of a piece good (component 3: fig. 1) via a suction gripping device (vacuum gripper 1: fig. 1),
comprising: docking a suction head (movable support element 5: fig. 1) of the suction gripping device onto the piece good and gripping the piece good via a vacuum ([0003]) generated in the suction head;
automatically moving the piece good gripped by the suction gripping devices by automatically moving the suction head; (automation of support element movement, [0043])
generating an output signal via a load sensor (sensors 16,17: fig. 2, [0018], [0067]), the output signal comprising an information item of gripping information as to how securely the piece good is held by the suction gripping device;
and setting at least one operating parameter of the suction gripping device as a function of the gripping information. (controlling movement speed and acceleration, [0033]; controlling suction power, [0051])
Regarding claim 16,
Secibovic discloses the limitations of claim 15 and also:
wherein the at least one operating parameter comprises an acceleration of the suction head. (controlling movement speed and acceleration, [0033])
Regarding claim 17,
Secibovic discloses the limitations of claim 16 and also:
wherein the at least one operating parameter comprises a pumping power of a vacuum pumping device which generates a negative pressure in the suction gripping device. (controlling suction power, [0051])
Regarding claim 21,
Secibovic discloses the limitations of claim 15 and also:
wherein the at least one operating parameter comprises a pumping power of a vacuum pumping device which generates a negative pressure in the suction gripping device. (controlling suction power, [0051])
Regarding claim 23,
Secibovic discloses the limitations of claim 15, and also:
wherein the gripping information is dependent on a negative pressure in the suction gripping device. (pressure sensors, [0018], [0067]; controlling suction power, [0051])
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.
Claims 18-20, 22, 24-31 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Secibovic in view of Rodrigues, et al., US 10,583,560 (hereinafter Rodrigues).
Regarding claim 18,
Secibovic discloses the limitations of claim 17, but not:
wherein the gripping information is dependent on an inertial force produced by the movement of the piece and/or dependent on a mass of the piece good. Secibovic does not disclose inertial force or an inertial sensor.
Rodrigues, an invention in the field of robotic lifting devices, teaches:
wherein the gripping information is dependent on an inertial force produced by the movement of the piece and/or dependent on a mass of the piece good.Rodrigues teaches an inertial sensor in C6/L29-37.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Secibovic, wherein the gripping information is dependent on an inertial force produced by the movement of the piece and/or dependent on a mass of the piece good, as taught by Rodrigues, because while Secibovic teaches acceleration as a consideration in controlling its robotic suction device, it does not teach a particular type of acceleration sensor; inertial sensors are a well-known type of acceleration sensor that combines the ability to detect acceleration with the ability to detect orientation, also a desideratum in controlling movement.
Regarding claim 19,
Secibovic in view of Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 18, and also:
wherein the gripping information is dependent on the negative pressure in the suction gripping device. Secibovic teaches the use of pressure sensors in [0018] and [0067]. Vacuum or suction lifting devices generate suction in the form of negative pressure, and so Secibovic’s pressure sensor measures negative pressure as an input to its system.
Regarding claim 20,
Secibovic in view of Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 19, and also:
wherein a type of the piece good is determined whether the piece good is a package or a bag, and the at least one operating parameter is set depending on the determined type of the piece good. Rodrigues teaches type analysis for handled piece goods in C7/L13-27. The types distinguished include products and various types of containers, which we map to applicant’s “package” and “bag” types. Rodrigues also teaches a complex object handling strategy 442 in C17/L59-C19/L29 dependent on the data associated with the type determination of the object. The elements of this strategy such as object entry properties 308 constitute the claimed operating parameters. In particular we direct attention to C10/L49-C11/L25 regarding deformation parameters of objects to be gripped and transferred. As Secibovic discloses an optical sensor 17 on its movable support element (suction head), Rodrigues’ method is compatible with Secibovic’s system without further structural combination.
Regarding claim 22,
Secibovic in view of Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 15, and also:
wherein the gripping information is dependent on an inertial force produced by the movement of the piece and/or dependent on a mass of the piece good. Rodrigues teaches an inertial sensor in C6/L29-37. “Inertial force” (actually a pseudoforce) is itself dependent on the mass of the piece good being moved.
Regarding claim 24,
Secibovic discloses the limitations of claim 15, but not:
wherein a type of the piece good is determined whether the piece good is a package or a bag, and the at least one operating parameter is set depending on the determined type of the piece good.Secibovic does not disclose identifying piece good types.
Rodrigues, an invention in the field of robotic lifting devices, teaches:
wherein a type of the piece good is determined whether the piece good is a package or a bag, and the at least one operating parameter is set depending on the determined type of the piece good.Rodrigues teaches type analysis for handled piece goods in C7/L13-27. The types distinguished include products and various types of containers, which we map to applicant’s “package” and “bag” types. Rodrigues also teaches a complex object handling strategy 442 in C17/L59-C19/L29 dependent on the data associated with the type determination of the object. The elements of this strategy such as object entry properties 308 constitute the claimed operating parameters. In particular we direct attention to C10/L49-C11/L25 regarding deformation parameters of objects to be gripped and transferred. As Secibovic discloses an optical sensor 17 on its movable support element (suction head), Rodrigues’ method is compatible with Secibovic’s system without further structural combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Secibovic, wherein a type of the piece good is determined whether the piece good is a package or a bag, and the at least one operating parameter is set depending on the determined type of the piece good, as taught by Rodrigues, because determining the type of an object to be lifted and transferred plainly enables the determination of features such as mass, fragility, and surface deformability that can be used to guide the application of suction to grip the object. In particular a rigid package and a semi-rigid or flexible bag differ in deformability characteristics, and deformability is a key datum for Rodrigues as it teaches in C10/L49-C11/L25.
Regarding claim 25,
Secibovic discloses:
A suction gripping device (vacuum gripper 1: fig. 1) comprising: a suction head (movable support element 5: fig. 1);
a suction generator (vacuum generators 8, 10: fig. 2);
a load sensor (sensors 16,17: fig. 2, [0067]);
a movement agent (support arm 6: fig. 1, [0043])
and a controlling agent (plant controller 14: fig. 1);
wherein the suction generator is configured to generate a negative pressure in the suction head; (controlling suction power, [0051])
wherein the suction head is configured to be docked with a piece good and to grip the piece good via the negative pressure generated in the suction head (gripping with suction, [0010]);
wherein the movement agent is configured to automatically move the suction head and the piece good gripped by the suction head (robotic movement of support arm, [0012]);
wherein the load sensor is configured to generate an output signal comprising information that includes gripping information, which permits a statement to be made as to how securely the piece good are held by the suction head (pressure sensor usage, [0018]);
wherein the load sensor is configured to feed the output signal into the controlling agent; (signal to controller, [0068])
wherein the controlling agent is configured to control the suction gripping device such that at least one operating parameter of the suction gripping device is adjusted in dependence on the gripping information; (controlling movement speed and acceleration, [0033]; controlling suction power, [0051])
However, Secibovic does not disclose:
and wherein the suction gripping device is configured to determine a type of the piece good and to control the automatic movement of the piece good gripped by the suction gripping device such that a slowing down of the piece good is set or adjusted depending on the determined type of the piece good. Secibovic does not disclose the claimed type determination and control method. However, as Secibovic does disclose an optical sensor, it could, given a method taught by another reference, perform the claimed type determination
Rodrigues, an invention in the field of robotic lifting devices, teaches:
and wherein the suction gripping device is configured to determine a type of the piece good and to control the automatic movement of the piece good gripped by the suction gripping device such that a slowing down of the piece good is set or adjusted depending on the determined type of the piece good. Rodrigues teaches type analysis for handled piece goods in C7/L13-27. The types distinguished include products and various types of containers, which we map to applicant’s “package” and “bag” types. Rodrigues also teaches a complex object handling strategy 442 in C17/L59-C19/L29 dependent on the data associated with the type determination of the object. The elements of this strategy such as object entry properties 308 constitute the claimed operating parameters. In particular we direct attention to C10/L49-C11/L25 regarding deformation parameters of objects to be gripped and transferred. As Secibovic discloses an optical sensor 17 on its movable support element (suction head), Rodrigues’ method is compatible with Secibovic’s system without further structural combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Secibovic, and wherein the suction gripping device is configured to determine a type of the piece good and to control the automatic movement of the piece good gripped by the suction gripping device such that a slowing down of the piece good is set or adjusted depending on the determined type of the piece good, as taught by Rodrigues, because determining the type of an object to be lifted and transferred plainly enables the determination of features such as mass, fragility, and surface deformability that can be used to guide the application of suction to grip the object. In particular a rigid package and a semi-rigid or flexible bag differ in deformability characteristics, and deformability is a key datum for Rodrigues as it teaches in C10/L49-C11/L25.
Regarding claim 26,
Secibovic in view of Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 25 and also:
wherein the at least one operating parameter comprises an acceleration of the suction head and the controlling agent is configured to control the movement agent such that the acceleration of the suction head is adjusted in dependence on the gripping information. (Secibovic, controlling movement speed and acceleration, [0033])
Regarding claim 27,
Secibovic in view of Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 26 and also:
wherein the at least one operating parameter comprises a suction power of the suction generator, and wherein the controlling agent is configured to control the suction generator such that the suction power of the suction generator is adjusted in dependence on the gripping information. (Secibovic, controlling suction power, [0051])
Regarding claim 28,
Secibovic in view of Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 27 and also:
wherein the gripping information is dependent on an inertial force produced by the movement of the piece good and/or dependent on a mass of the piece good.Rodrigues teaches an inertial sensor in C6/L29-37. Inertia (a pseudo-force) is dependent on mass.
Regarding claim 29,
Secibovic in view of Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 28 and also:
wherein the gripping information is dependent on a vacuum prevailing in the suction head. (Secibovic, pressure sensors, [0018], [0067]; controlling suction power, [0051])
Regarding claim 30,
Secibovic in view of Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 26 and also:
further comprising: a vision system configured to determine a property of the piece good and to feed information characterizing the property that includes piece good property information into the controlling agent, and wherein the controlling agent is configured to control the suction gripping device such that the at least one operating parameter of the suction gripping device is set in dependence on the piece good property information. Rodrigues teaches imaging devices 222 suitable for use with computer vision for detecting the target object in C9/L7-33. These sensors can be used to determine object type per C7/L13-27. Rodrigues also teaches a complex object handling strategy 442 in C17/L59-C19/L29 dependent on the data associated with the type determination of the object. The elements of this strategy such as object entry properties 308 constitute the claimed operating parameters. In particular we direct attention to C10/L49-C11/L25 regarding deformation parameters of objects to be gripped and transferred.
Regarding claim 31,
Secibovic in view of Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 26 and also:
wherein the load sensor is configured as a load switch comprising a threshold value, and wherein the at least one operating parameter is set when the threshold value is exceeded or undershot. Rodrigues teaches the claimed load threshold and control of operating parameters in consequence in claim 2.
Regarding claim 33,
Secibovic in view of Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 26 and also:
wherein the gripping information is dependent on an inertial force produced by the movement of the piece good and/or dependent on a mass of the piece good.Rodrigues teaches an inertial sensor in C6/L29-37. Inertia (a pseudo-force) is dependent on mass.
Regarding claim 34,
Secibovic in view of Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 26 and also:
wherein the gripping information is dependent on a vacuum prevailing in the suction head. (Secibovic, pressure sensors, [0018], [0067]; controlling suction power, [0051])
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Secibovic in view of Rodrigues and further in view of Zevenbergen, et al., US 9,205,558 (hereinafter Zevenbergen).
Secibovic in view of Rodrigues teaches the limitations of claim 26 but not all aspects of:
wherein the load sensor is configured to output an output signal which permits more than a pure threshold value decision, and the at least one operating parameter is set as a function of an analog or quasi-analog value of the output signal.While Secibovic discloses a load sensor in [0018] and [0067], and while Rodrigues teaches load sensors in C9/L46-63, neither reference teaches whether the sensor’s signals are analog, quasi-analog, or digital. Of course, all these signal types are commonplace and well known in the art.
Zevenbergen, an invention in the field of suction cup control, teaches this missing aspects of:
wherein the load sensor is configured to output an output signal which permits more than a pure threshold value decision, and the at least one operating parameter is set as a function of an analog or quasi-analog value of the output signal.Zevenbergen teaches analog sensors for a system similar to applicant’s and to the other references in C1/L30. Regarding the clause, “permits more than a pure threshold value decision”, all signals and data of any form and type whatsoever permit more than a pure threshold value decision. An infinitude of decisions and types of decision may be determined or permitted by any signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Secibovic and Rodrigues, wherein the load sensor is configured to output an output signal which permits more than a pure threshold value decision, and the at least one operating parameter is set as a function of an analog or quasi-analog value of the output signal, as taught by Zevenbergen, because analog sensors transmitting analog signals are widespread in the current art and have been employed for generations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE 102015205494, DE 102014218295, and DE 102005045681 were all cited as anticipatory in a European ISR and could have been cited in rejection in this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights