DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits in response to communications filed by Applicant on September 28th, 2023. Claims 1-26 are currently pending and examined below.
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 Amendment
The amendments to the Claims, filed on January 7th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 15, and 16 are currently amended, and pending, claims 3-4, 7-9, 11-14, and 21-26 are as previously presented and pending, and claims 2, -6, 10, 17, and 20 are original, unamended, and pending. The amendments to the Drawings, filed on January 7th, 2025, have been entered and have overcome each and every object set forth in the previous Non-Final Office Action mailed July 7th, 2025. The amendments to the Specifications, filed on January 7th, 2025, have been entered and have overcome each and every object set forth in the previous Non-Final Office Action mailed July 7th, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 9-17, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10792809 B2 ("Bingham") in view of WO 2020136563 A2 ("Tedbury") in further view of US 2021/0213479 A1 ("Grass").
Regarding claim 1, Bingham teaches a system for handling pot lids in an aluminum production plant comprising (Bingham: Figures 2 and 3, Column 12 lines 40-46, “FIG. 2 shows an example robotic arm 200. As shown, the robotic arm 200 includes a base 202, which may be a stationary base or may be a movable base. In the case of a movable base, the base 202 may be considered as one of the mechanical components 110 and may include wheels (not shown), powered by one or more of actuators, which allow for mobility of the entire robotic arm 200.”, Column 13 lines 28-32, “FIG. 3 shows the example robotic arm 200 with an underactuated robotic gripping device 308. Robotic gripping device 308 may be similar or identical to any of the underactuated robotic gripping devices described in more detail below.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the robot system, which is configured to grasp and lift object, would be able to perform the task of lifting pot lids.):
a robot assembly comprising at least one manipulator arm (Bingham: Figures 2 and 3, Column 8 lines 15-24, “FIG. 1 illustrates an example configuration of a robotic system that may be used in connection with the implementations described herein. The robotic system 100 may be configured to operate autonomously, semi-autonomously, and/or using directions provided by user(s). The robotic system 100 may be implemented in various forms, such as a robotic arm, industrial robot, or some other arrangement. Furthermore, the robotic system 100 may also be referred to as a robot, robotic device, or mobile robot, among other designations.”, Column 12 lines 40-46, “FIG. 2 shows an example robotic arm 200. As shown, the robotic arm 200 includes a base 202, which may be a stationary base or may be a movable base. In the case of a movable base, the base 202 may be considered as one of the mechanical components 110 and may include wheels (not shown), powered by one or more of actuators, which allow for mobility of the entire robotic arm 200.”, Column 13 lines 28-32, “FIG. 3 shows the example robotic arm 200 with an underactuated robotic gripping device 308. Robotic gripping device 308 may be similar or identical to any of the underactuated robotic gripping devices described in more detail below.”);
a lid gripper apparatus configured to grip at least one protruding or upstanding formation on a pot lid (Bingham: Figures 2 and 3, Column 26 lines 34-47, “At block 1502, the method 1500 may include controlling a robotic gripping device to cause a plurality of digits of the robotic gripping device to move towards each other in an attempt to grasp an object. More specifically, a control system of a robot may identify an object in the environment for the gripper to pick up based on sensor data from one or more sensors remote from the gripper and/or on the gripper. The control system may then move the gripper to a position where the object is between the digits (e.g., two opposable digits) before actuating the digits to attempt to grasp the object. In some examples, imperfect perception information, unexpected object properties, unexpected environmental conditions, and/or other factors may cause a grasp attempt to fail.”, Column 37 lines 45-60, “At block 1508, the method 1500 may include determining, using an object-in-hand classifier that takes as input the first sensor data and the second sensor data, a result of the attempt to grasp the object.”. As can be seen from the cited figures the robot is configured to grasp objects. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the robot system disclosed would be able to grip a protrusion on a pot lid.),
the lid gripper apparatus mounted at one end of the at least one manipulator arm (Bingham: Figures 2 and 3, Column 12 lines 47-62, “The actuators in joints 204A-204F may operate to cause movement of various mechanical components 110 such as appendages 206A-206F and/or end effector 208. For example, the actuator in joint 204F may cause movement of appendage 206F and end effector 208 (i.e., since end effector 208 is coupled to appendage 206F).”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see from the cited figures and paragraphs that the end effector is clearly coupled to the end of the robotic arm.);
and a sensor system; wherein the sensor system is operable to generate position information to control the position of the at least one manipulator arm and/or lid gripper apparatus (Bingham: Column 10 lines 28-57, “The sensor(s) 112 may provide sensor data to the processor(s) 102 (perhaps by way of data 107) to allow for interaction of the robotic system 100 with its environment, as well as monitoring of the operation of the robotic system 100. The sensor data may be used in evaluation of various factors for activation, movement, and deactivation of mechanical components 110 and electrical components 116 by control system 118. For example, the sensor(s) 112 may capture data corresponding to the terrain of the environment or location of nearby objects, which may assist with environment recognition and navigation. In an example configuration, sensor(s) 112 may include RADAR (e.g., for long range object detection, distance determination, and/or speed determination), LIDAR (e.g., for short-range object detection, distance determination, and/or speed determination), SONAR (e.g., for underwater object detection, distance determination, and/or speed determination), VICON® (e.g., for motion capture), one or more cameras ( e.g., stereoscopic cameras for 3D vision), a global positioning system (GPS) transceiver, and/or other sensors for capturing information of the environment in which the robotic system 100 is operating.”, Column 22 lines 44-60, “At block 902, method 900 may include receiving time-of-flight distance data from a time-of-flight sensor on the palm of the gripper. The data may be indicative of a direction from the palm of the gripper toward an area between a plurality of digits ( e.g., two opposable digits) of the gripper. The time-of-flight distance data may include a distance measurement to a nearest object in the direction toward the area between the digits.”, Column 22 lines 61-67, “At block 904, method 900 may include receiving gray scale image data from an infrared camera on the palm of the gripper. The image data may also be indicative of a direction from the palm of the gripper toward an area between a plurality of digits of the gripper.”, Column 23 lines 5-21, “At block 906, method 900 may further include controlling the gripper based on the time-of-flight distance data and the grayscale image data. More specifically, data from the time-of-flight sensor and the infrared camera may be fused together, possibly in addition to data from other sensors, in order to generate control instructions for the gripper.”);
Bingham does not teach wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus.
Tedbury, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus (Tedbury: Page 8 lines 29-51, “Figure 8 shows a perspective view of the exposed workings of an exemplary robot gripper 82040, shown clasping a typical brick 82090. The mechanism is composed of a main plate 8250, which is approximately square. This is joined to the rest of the robot’s mechanism via a bearing joint 8260 which allows the whole gripper assembly to rotate around the vertical axis. A central hole within this bearing allows wires to pass to the rest of the gripper mechanism while it rotates. A linear actuator is mounted in the middle of the plate 8270, controlling the movement of the two gripper jaws 8050-1. The jaws can move horizontally in a linear motion, moving closer together or further apart. The jaw ends consist of a vertically mounted flat plate 8050-1 which interfaces with the side of the brick. The plate may have a shaped or stepped end profile to allow it to also interface with the top of the brick, thus calibrating the brick’s vertical and lateral position. At each comer of the plate is a sensor see figure 9 to measure distance between the top of the brick and the plate. Arranged in symmetrical pairs, there are tapping or vibration mechanisms 8280 to adjust the relative position of the brick once it has been placed on to the mortar bed and released from the gripper jaws.”. As can be seen from the cited passage, the end effector has a vibration mechanism configured vibrate the end effector and, by extension, the object that is being gripped.).
The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not combine the system for grasping pot lids and the vibration device into a single reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have combine the system for grasping pot lids taught in Bingham with the vibration device taught in Tedbury. Furthermore, the robotic systems in both Bingham and Tedbury consist of an end effector with a jaw-like gripping device configured to grip objects, so modifying robotic system in Bingham with the vibration device in Tedbury would not change or introduce new functionality to either. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a robotic manipulator with an end effector that has a device to apply vibrations to a gripped object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine system for handling potlids taught in Bingham with the vibration device taught in Tedbury with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Bingham in view of Tedbury does not teach wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus.
Grass, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus (Grass: Figure 1, Abstract, “A system and a method are disclosed for applying a vibration to a container comprising a content, said container held by an end effector attached to a mechatronic manipulator, the system comprising a vibration generator operatively coupled to at least one of the end effector and the mechatronic manipulator at an operating distance from the container such that when said vibration generator is in operation, said vibration generator causes said container to vibrate accordingly and a controller operatively connected to the vibration generator, the controller for generating and providing a controlling signal to the vibration generator.”, ¶ 0069, “The robotic system 50 comprises, inter alia, a mechatronic manipulator 100 and an end effector 200. A container 404 comprising a content 405 is held by the end effector 200 of the robotic system 50.”, ¶ 0071, “The skilled addressee will appreciate that the mechatronic manipulator 100 may be of various types. For instance and in accordance with one embodiment, the mechatronic manipulator 100 is a six-axis robotic arm and is manufactured by Universal Robots. In another embodiment, the mechatronic manipulator 100 is a Cartesian robot and is manufactured by Yamaha Motor. In another embodiment, the mechatronic manipulator 100 is a SCARA robot and is manufactured by Epson. The skilled addressee will appreciate that various alternative embodiments may be provided for the mechatronic manipulator 100.”, ¶ 0073, “The skilled addressee will appreciate that the end effector 200 may be of various types depending for instance on the container to be held. In one embodiment, the end effector 200 is a robotic gripper manufactured by Robotiq. In another embodiment, the end effector 200 is a vacuum gripper and is manufactured by Coval. In another embodiment, the end effector 200 is a magnetic gripper and is manufactured by SMC Corporation of America. The skilled addressee will appreciate that various alternative embodiments may be provided for the end effector 200.”, ¶ 0077, “The system comprises a vibration generator operatively coupled to at least one of the end effector 200 and the mechatronic manipulator 100 at an operating distance from the container 404 such that when the vibration generator is in operation, the vibration generator causes the container 404 to vibrate accordingly.”, ¶ 0086, “More precisely, the end effector 200 is a robotic gripper comprising at least one finger used for holding the container 404. It will be appreciated that in this specific embodiment, the system for applying a vibration to the container 404 comprises a vibration generator 300 which is operatively coupled to the end effector 200. More precisely and in this specific embodiment, the vibration generator 300 is mounted inside a first finger 210a of the at least one finger of the end effector 200.”, ¶ 0113, “More specifically, in this embodiment two vibration motors 700, 702 are integrated each in a respective one of the first finger 210a and the second finger 210b of the end effector 200.”, ¶ 0125, “According to processing step 904, the determined controlling signal is provided to a vibration generator operatively coupled to at least one of the end effector and the mechatronic manipulator at an operating distance from the container such that when the vibration generator is in operation, the vibration generator causes the container to vibrate accordingly.”. The cited passages clearly shows that the system comprises a robot with an end effector that has a vibrating mechanism coupled to it, wherein the system is configured to vibrate an object held by said end effector. On of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the system has structure that would have been able to grip and apply a vibration to a pot lid.).
Bingham in view of Tedbury teaches a system for handling pot lids in an aluminium production plant comprising: a robot assembly comprising at least one manipulator arm; a lid gripper apparatus configured to grip at least one protruding or upstanding formation on a pot lid, the lid gripper apparatus mounted at one end of the at least one manipulator arm; and a sensor system; wherein the sensor system is operable to generate position information to control the position of the at least one manipulator arm and/or lid gripper apparatus; wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus. Bingham in view of Tedbury does not teach wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus. Grass teaches wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the system taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury with wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus taught in Grass. Furthermore, the system taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury already teaches a robotic manipulator configured to grasp an object and a vibrating mechanism disposed in the end effector. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the system taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury to apply a vibration to the grasped object as taught in Grass according to methods known in the art. Additionally, such a modification would not have changed or introduced new functionality. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a system for handling pot lids in an aluminium production plant wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the system taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury with wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus taught in Grass with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass teaches wherein the lid gripper apparatus is configured to contact at least two surfaces or sides of the at least one protruding or upstanding formation to clamp the at least one protruding or upstanding formation (Bingham: Figures 2, 3, and 5, Column 14 lines 1-12, “FIG. 5 illustrates an example underactuated robotic gripping device, including components arranged to carry out the operation of the mechanism discussed with reference to FIG. 4. Robotic gripping device 500 may be implemented as a mechanical component of system 100 and/or robotic arm 200.”, Column 26 lines 34-47, “At block 1502, the method 1500 may include controlling a robotic gripping device to cause a plurality of digits of the robotic gripping device to move towards each other in an attempt to grasp an object. More specifically, a control system of a robot may identify an object in the environment for the gripper to pick up based on sensor data from one or more sensors remote from the gripper and/or on the gripper. The control system may then move the gripper to a position where the object is between the digits (e.g., two opposable digits) before actuating the digits to attempt to grasp the object. In some examples, imperfect perception information, unexpected object properties, unexpected environmental conditions, and/or other factors may cause a grasp attempt to fail.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that because of the structure of the robot and the steps of grasping an object taught in the cited figures and paragraph, the gripper is configured to contact at least two sides of the object it is gripping.).
Regarding claim 4, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass teaches wherein the robot assembly is movably mounted on a support, vehicle, crane, positioning system or at least one positioning member of a positioning system (Bingham: Column 12 lines 29-39, “As noted above, the robotic system 100 may include various types of legs, arms, wheels, end effectors, gripping devices and so on. In general, the robotic system 100 may be configured with zero or more legs. An implementation of the robotic system with zero legs may include wheels, treads, or some other form of locomotion. An implementation of the robotic system with two legs may be referred to as a biped, and an implementation with four legs may be referred as a quadruped. Implementations with six or eight legs are also possible. For purposes of illustration, robotic arm implementations of the robotic system 100 are described below.”, Column 12 lines 40-46, “FIG. 2 shows an example robotic arm 200. As shown, the robotic arm 200 includes a base 202, which may be a stationary base or may be a movable base. In the case of a movable base, the base 202 may be considered as one of the mechanical components 110 and may include wheels (not shown), powered by one or more of actuators, which allow for mobility of the entire robotic arm 200.”, Tedbury: Page 8 lines 19-28, “The robot further comprises a main effector, such as an end effector. The main effector may be a main gripper. The main gripper is configured to grip structural units, such as a brick. The main gripper moves horizontally along the main chassis independently of the two legs. It is mounted on the underside of the chassis, between the paths of the two legs.”).
Regarding claim 9, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass teaches wherein the sensor system comprises at least one sensor selected from the group comprising optical sensor, vision system, camera, time of flight camera, depth sensor, distance sensor, laser, ultrasound, momentum sensor, accelerometer, rotary position sensor, gyroscopic position sensor, global positioning sensor, infra-red sensor, thermal sensor, load cell and/or LIDAR (Bingham: Column 10 lines 28-57, “The sensor(s) 112 may provide sensor data to the processor(s) 102 (perhaps by way of data 107) to allow for interaction of the robotic system 100 with its environment, as well as monitoring of the operation of the robotic system 100. The sensor data may be used in evaluation of various factors for activation, movement, and deactivation of mechanical components 110 and electrical components 116 by control system 118. For example, the sensor(s) 112 may capture data corresponding to the terrain of the environment or location of nearby objects, which may assist with environment recognition and navigation. In an example configuration, sensor(s) 112 may include RADAR (e.g., for long range object detection, distance determination, and/or speed determination), LIDAR (e.g., for short-range object detection, distance determination, and/or speed determination), SONAR (e.g., for underwater object detection, distance determination, and/or speed determination), VICON® (e.g., for motion capture), one or more cameras ( e.g., stereoscopic cameras for 3D vision), a global positioning system (GPS) transceiver, and/or other sensors for capturing information of the environment in which the robotic system 100 is operating.”).
Regarding claim 10, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass teaches wherein the at least one sensor of the sensor system is mounted on the robot assembly, at least one manipulator arm and/or lid gripper apparatus (Bingham: Figure 7, Column 18 lines 46-55, “FIG. 7 illustrates a sensing device for a robotic gripper, in accordance with example embodiments. More specifically, printed circuit board (PCB) 700 may be configured to fit into the palm of a robotic gripper, such as an underactuated gripper described in reference to FIGS. 4 and 5. The PCB 700 may include sensors including a short-range time-of flight sensor 710, a long-range time-of-flight sensor 720, and an infrared microcamera 730 arranged on a front side of PCB 700. The PCB 700 may additionally include an IMU 740 arranged on a rear side of PCB 700.”).
Regarding claim 11, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass teaches wherein the sensor system comprises a vision system comprising at least one optical sensor (Bingham: (Bingham: Figure 7, Column 18 lines 46-55, “FIG. 7 illustrates a sensing device for a robotic gripper, in accordance with example embodiments. More specifically, printed circuit board (PCB) 700 may be configured to fit into the palm of a robotic gripper, such as an underactuated gripper described in reference to FIGS. 4 and 5. The PCB 700 may include sensors including a short-range time-of flight sensor 710, a long-range time-of-flight sensor 720, and an infrared microcamera 730 arranged on a front side of PCB 700. The PCB 700 may additionally include an IMU 740 arranged on a rear side of PCB 700.”, The sensing system includes an infrared camera. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that this is clearly a type of optical sensor.).
Regarding claim 12, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass teaches comprising at least one processing unit configured to process a movement path for the robot assembly, the lid gripper apparatus, the lid and/or the at least one protruding or upstanding formation based on the position information generated by the sensor system (Bingham: Column 8 lines 39-49, “Processor(s) 102 may operate as one or more general purpose hardware processors or special purpose hardware processors ( e.g., digital signal processors, application specific integrated circuits, etc.). The processor(s) 102 may be configured to execute computer-readable program instructions 106, and manipulate data 107, both of which are stored in the data storage 104. The processor(s) 102 may also directly or indirectly interact with other components of the robotic system 100, such as sensor(s) 112, power source(s) 114, mechanical components 110, and/or electrical components 116.”, Column 23 lines 5-21, “At block 906, method 900 may further include controlling the gripper based on the time-of-flight distance data and the grayscale image data. More specifically, data from the time-of-flight sensor and the infrared camera may be fused together, possibly in addition to data from other sensors, in order to generate control instructions for the gripper. The 10 data fusion may involve heuristics-based and/or machine learning models. The control instructions may relate to a first temporal phase before grasping an object (e.g., identifying an object to grasp, approaching the object, determining an appropriate stopping distance, and/or visual servoing). The 15 control instructions may also relate to a second temporal phase after an attempted grasp ( e.g., confirming grasp success, evaluating quality of the grasp, and/or determining properties of the object). The control instructions may also relate to a third temporal phase after a successful grasp ( e.g., 20 slip detection while moving a grasped object).”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the robot is clearly configured to generate a movement path to approach the object to be grasped based on the position information received from the sensors.).
Regarding claim 13, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass teaches comprising at least one control unit configured to move a crane, positioning system, at least one positioning member of a positioning system, robot assembly, at least one manipulator arm of the robot and/or the lid gripper apparatus in relation to the pot, lid and/or at least one protruding or upstanding formation (Bingham: Column 9 lines 1-10, “The controller 108 may include one or more electrical circuits, units of digital logic, computer chips, and/or microprocessors that are configured to (perhaps among other tasks), interface between any combination of the mechanical components 110, the sensor(s) 112, the power source(s) 114, the electrical components 116, the control system 118, and/or a user of the robotic system 100. In some implementations, the controller 108 may be a purpose-built embedded device for performing specific operations with one or more subsystems of the robotic device 100.”, Column 23 lines 5-21, “The control instructions may relate to a first temporal phase before grasping an object (e.g., identifying an object to grasp, approaching the object, determining an appropriate stopping distance, and/or visual servoing). The control instructions may also relate to a second temporal phase after an attempted grasp ( e.g., confirming grasp success, evaluating quality of the grasp, and/or determining properties of the object). The control instructions may also relate to a third temporal phase after a successful grasp ( e.g., 20 slip detection while moving a grasped object).”).
Regarding claim 14, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass teaches wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one grip member operable to move between an open condition and a closed condition (Bingham: Column 14 lines 13-25, “Robotic gripping device 500 may include one or more physical components, including one or more digits 502A-B, 15 actuators 504, and/or springs 506. In some examples, robotic gripping device 500 may include two opposable digits, as shown in FIG. 5. In other examples, more or fewer digits may be included. Where three or more digits are included, the digits may be arranged in two groups opposing each 20 other, such that when they are actuated they close toward each other. Two digits may be positioned opposite the third, such that when the digits close they interlock. In other examples, the digits may be positioned or spaced evenly around a palm or base section. Other arrangements are 25 possible as well.”, Column 14 lines 26-35, “Each digit 502A-B may be configured to move in a gripping direction, to contact, grasp, hold, grip, or otherwise interact with an object.”).
Regarding claim 15, Bingham teaches a lid gripper apparatus for a lid handling system, the lid gripper apparatus comprising (Bingham: Figures 2 and 3, Column 12 lines 40-46, “FIG. 2 shows an example robotic arm 200. As shown, the robotic arm 200 includes a base 202, which may be a stationary base or may be a movable base. In the case of a movable base, the base 202 may be considered as one of the mechanical components 110 and may include wheels (not shown), powered by one or more of actuators, which allow for mobility of the entire robotic arm 200.”, Column 13 lines 28-32, “FIG. 3 shows the example robotic arm 200 with an underactuated robotic gripping device 308. Robotic gripping device 308 may be similar or identical to any of the underactuated robotic gripping devices described in more detail below.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the robot system, which is configured to grasp and lift object, would be able to perform the task of lifting pot lids.):
at least one grip member configured to move between an open condition and a closed condition (Bingham: Column 14 lines 13-25, “Robotic gripping device 500 may include one or more physical components, including one or more digits 502A-B, 15 actuators 504, and/or springs 506. In some examples, robotic gripping device 500 may include two opposable digits, as shown in FIG. 5. In other examples, more or fewer digits may be included. Where three or more digits are included, the digits may be arranged in two groups opposing each 20 other, such that when they are actuated they close toward each other. Two digits may be positioned opposite the third, such that when the digits close they interlock. In other examples, the digits may be positioned or spaced evenly around a palm or base section. Other arrangements are 25 possible as well.”, Column 14 lines 26-35, “Each digit 502A-B may be configured to move in a gripping direction, to contact, grasp, hold, grip, or otherwise interact with an object.”);
wherein the at least one grip member is configured to grip at least one protruding or upstanding formation on a pot lid when in the closed condition (Bingham: Figures 2, 3, and 5, Column 14 lines 1-12, “FIG. 5 illustrates an example underactuated robotic gripping device, including components arranged to carry out the operation of the mechanism discussed with reference to FIG. 4. Robotic gripping device 500 may be implemented as a mechanical component of system 100 and/or robotic arm 200.”, Column 26 lines 34-47, “At block 1502, the method 1500 may include controlling a robotic gripping device to cause a plurality of digits of the robotic gripping device to move towards each other in an attempt to grasp an object. More specifically, a control system of a robot may identify an object in the environment for the gripper to pick up based on sensor data from one or more sensors remote from the gripper and/or on the gripper. The control system may then move the gripper to a position where the object is between the digits (e.g., two opposable digits) before actuating the digits to attempt to grasp the object. In some examples, imperfect perception information, unexpected object properties, unexpected environmental conditions, and/or other factors may cause a grasp attempt to fail.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that because of the structure of the robot and the steps of grasping an object taught in the cited figures and paragraph, the gripper is configured to contact at least two sides of the object it is gripping.).
Bingham does not teach a support frame;
wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus.
Tedbury, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a support frame (Tedbury: Page 8 lines 19-28, “The robot further comprises a main effector, such as an end effector. The main effector may be a main gripper. The main gripper is configured to grip structural units, such as a brick. The main gripper moves horizontally along the main chassis independently of the two legs. It is mounted on the underside of the chassis, between the paths of the two legs.”);
wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus (Tedbury: Page 8 lines 29-51, “Figure 8 shows a perspective view of the exposed workings of an exemplary robot gripper 82040, shown clasping a typical brick 82090. The mechanism is composed of a main plate 8250, which is approximately square. This is joined to the rest of the robot’s mechanism via a bearing joint 8260 which allows the whole gripper assembly to rotate around the vertical axis. A central hole within this bearing allows wires to pass to the rest of the gripper mechanism while it rotates. A linear actuator is mounted in the middle of the plate 8270, controlling the movement of the two gripper jaws 8050-1. The jaws can move horizontally in a linear motion, moving closer together or further apart. The jaw ends consist of a vertically mounted flat plate 8050-1 which interfaces with the side of the brick. The plate may have a shaped or stepped end profile to allow it to also interface with the top of the brick, thus calibrating the brick’s vertical and lateral position. At each comer of the plate is a sensor see figure 9 to measure distance between the top of the brick and the plate. Arranged in symmetrical pairs, there are tapping or vibration mechanisms 8280 to adjust the relative position of the brick once it has been placed on to the mortar bed and released from the gripper jaws.”. As can be seen from the cited passage, the end effector has a vibration mechanism configured vibrate the end effector and, by extension, the object that is being gripped.).
The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not combine the system for grasping pot lids and the support frame and the vibration device into a single reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have combine the system for grasping pot lids taught in Bingham with the support frame and vibration device taught in Tedbury. Furthermore, the robotic systems in both Bingham and Tedbury consist of an end effector with a jaw-like gripping device configured to grip objects, so modifying robotic system in Bingham with the vibration device in Tedbury would not change or introduce new functionality to either. Additionally, Tedbury discloses the different structures the robotic manipulator could be attached to, such as a base with wheels, so attaching the robotic manipulator to a support frame as taught in Tedbury would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a robotic manipulator with an end effector attached to a support frame that has a device to apply vibrations to a gripped object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine system for handling potlids taught in Bingham with the support frame and vibration device taught in Tedbury with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Bingham in view of Tedbury does not teach wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus.
Grass, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus (Grass: Figure 1, Abstract, “A system and a method are disclosed for applying a vibration to a container comprising a content, said container held by an end effector attached to a mechatronic manipulator, the system comprising a vibration generator operatively coupled to at least one of the end effector and the mechatronic manipulator at an operating distance from the container such that when said vibration generator is in operation, said vibration generator causes said container to vibrate accordingly and a controller operatively connected to the vibration generator, the controller for generating and providing a controlling signal to the vibration generator.”, ¶ 0069, “The robotic system 50 comprises, inter alia, a mechatronic manipulator 100 and an end effector 200. A container 404 comprising a content 405 is held by the end effector 200 of the robotic system 50.”, ¶ 0071, “The skilled addressee will appreciate that the mechatronic manipulator 100 may be of various types. For instance and in accordance with one embodiment, the mechatronic manipulator 100 is a six-axis robotic arm and is manufactured by Universal Robots. In another embodiment, the mechatronic manipulator 100 is a Cartesian robot and is manufactured by Yamaha Motor. In another embodiment, the mechatronic manipulator 100 is a SCARA robot and is manufactured by Epson. The skilled addressee will appreciate that various alternative embodiments may be provided for the mechatronic manipulator 100.”, ¶ 0073, “The skilled addressee will appreciate that the end effector 200 may be of various types depending for instance on the container to be held. In one embodiment, the end effector 200 is a robotic gripper manufactured by Robotiq. In another embodiment, the end effector 200 is a vacuum gripper and is manufactured by Coval. In another embodiment, the end effector 200 is a magnetic gripper and is manufactured by SMC Corporation of America. The skilled addressee will appreciate that various alternative embodiments may be provided for the end effector 200.”, ¶ 0077, “The system comprises a vibration generator operatively coupled to at least one of the end effector 200 and the mechatronic manipulator 100 at an operating distance from the container 404 such that when the vibration generator is in operation, the vibration generator causes the container 404 to vibrate accordingly.”, ¶ 0086, “More precisely, the end effector 200 is a robotic gripper comprising at least one finger used for holding the container 404. It will be appreciated that in this specific embodiment, the system for applying a vibration to the container 404 comprises a vibration generator 300 which is operatively coupled to the end effector 200. More precisely and in this specific embodiment, the vibration generator 300 is mounted inside a first finger 210a of the at least one finger of the end effector 200.”, ¶ 0113, “More specifically, in this embodiment two vibration motors 700, 702 are integrated each in a respective one of the first finger 210a and the second finger 210b of the end effector 200.”, ¶ 0125, “According to processing step 904, the determined controlling signal is provided to a vibration generator operatively coupled to at least one of the end effector and the mechatronic manipulator at an operating distance from the container such that when the vibration generator is in operation, the vibration generator causes the container to vibrate accordingly.”. The cited passages clearly shows that the system comprises a robot with an end effector that has a vibrating mechanism coupled to it, wherein the system is configured to vibrate an object held by said end effector. On of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the system has structure that would have been able to grip and apply a vibration to a pot lid.).
Bingham in view of Tedbury teaches lid gripper apparatus for a lid handling system, the lid gripper apparatus comprising: a support frame; at least one grip member configured to move between an open condition and a closed condition; wherein the at least one grip member is configured to grip at least one protruding or upstanding formation on a pot lid when in the closed condition wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus. Bingham in view of Tedbury does not teach wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus. Grass teaches wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the system taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury with wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus taught in Grass. Furthermore, the system taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury already teaches a robotic manipulator configured to grasp an object and a vibrating mechanism disposed in the end effector. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the system taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury to apply a vibration to the grasped object as taught in Grass according to methods known in the art. Additionally, such a modification would not have changed or introduced new functionality. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a lid gripper apparatus for a lid handling system wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the system taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury with wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus taught in Grass with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Bingham teaches a method for handling a pot lid in an aluminium production plant; the method comprising (Bingham: Figures 9 and 15, Column 23 lines 5-21, “At block 906, method 900 may further include controlling the gripper based on the time-of-flight distance data and the grayscale image data. More specifically, data from the time-of-flight sensor and the infrared camera may be fused together, possibly in addition to data from other sensors, in order to generate control instructions for the gripper. The 10 data fusion may involve heuristics-based and/or machine learning models. The control instructions may relate to a first temporal phase before grasping an object (e.g., identifying an object to grasp, approaching the object, determining an appropriate stopping distance, and/or visual servoing). The control instructions may also relate to a second temporal phase after an attempted grasp ( e.g., confirming grasp success, evaluating quality of the grasp, and/or determining properties of the object). The control instructions may also relate to a third temporal phase after a successful grasp ( e.g., 20 slip detection while moving a grasped object).”, Column 26 lines 34-47, “At block 1502, the method 1500 may include controlling a robotic gripping device to cause a plurality of digits of the robotic gripping device to move towards each other in an attempt to grasp an object.”):
providing a lid handling system comprising (Bingham: Figures 2 and 3, Column 12 lines 40-46, “FIG. 2 shows an example robotic arm 200. As shown, the robotic arm 200 includes a base 202, which may be a stationary base or may be a movable base. In the case of a movable base, the base 202 may be considered as one of the mechanical components 110 and may include wheels (not shown), powered by one or more of actuators, which allow for mobility of the entire robotic arm 200.”, Column 13 lines 28-32, “FIG. 3 shows the example robotic arm 200 with an underactuated robotic gripping device 308. Robotic gripping device 308 may be similar or identical to any of the underactuated robotic gripping devices described in more detail below.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the robot system, which is configured to grasp and lift object, would be able to perform the task of lifting pot lids.):
a robot assembly comprising at least one manipulator arm (Bingham: Figures 2 and 3, Column 8 lines 15-24, “FIG. 1 illustrates an example configuration of a robotic system that may be used in connection with the implementations described herein. The robotic system 100 may be configured to operate autonomously, semi-autonomously, and/or using directions provided by user(s). The robotic system 100 may be implemented in various forms, such as a robotic arm, industrial robot, or some other arrangement. Furthermore, the robotic system 100 may also be referred to as a robot, robotic device, or mobile robot, among other designations.”, Column 12 lines 40-46, “FIG. 2 shows an example robotic arm 200. As shown, the robotic arm 200 includes a base 202, which may be a stationary base or may be a movable base. In the case of a movable base, the base 202 may be considered as one of the mechanical components 110 and may include wheels (not shown), powered by one or more of actuators, which allow for mobility of the entire robotic arm 200.”, Column 13 lines 28-32, “FIG. 3 shows the example robotic arm 200 with an underactuated robotic gripping device 308. Robotic gripping device 308 may be similar or identical to any of the underactuated robotic gripping devices described in more detail below.”);
the lid gripper apparatus mounted at one end of the at least one manipulator arm (Bingham: Figures 2 and 3, Column 12 lines 47-62, “The actuators in joints 204A-204F may operate to cause movement of various mechanical components 110 such as appendages 206A-206F and/or end effector 208. For example, the actuator in joint 204F may cause movement of appendage 206F and end effector 208 (i.e., since end effector 208 is coupled to appendage 206F).”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see from the cited figures and paragraphs that the end effector is clearly coupled to the end of the robotic arm.);
and a sensor system; wherein the sensor system is operable to generate position information to control the position of the at least one manipulator arm and/or lid gripper apparatus (Bingham: Column 10 lines 28-57, “The sensor(s) 112 may provide sensor data to the processor(s) 102 (perhaps by way of data 107) to allow for interaction of the robotic system 100 with its environment, as well as monitoring of the operation of the robotic system 100. The sensor data may be used in evaluation of various factors for activation, movement, and deactivation of mechanical components 110 and electrical components 116 by control system 118. For example, the sensor(s) 112 may capture data corresponding to the terrain of the environment or location of nearby objects, which may assist with environment recognition and navigation. In an example configuration, sensor(s) 112 may include RADAR (e.g., for long range object detection, distance determination, and/or speed determination), LIDAR (e.g., for short-range object detection, distance determination, and/or speed determination), SONAR (e.g., for underwater object detection, distance determination, and/or speed determination), VICON® (e.g., for motion capture), one or more cameras ( e.g., stereoscopic cameras for 3D vision), a global positioning system (GPS) transceiver, and/or other sensors for capturing information of the environment in which the robotic system 100 is operating.”, Column 22 lines 44-60, “At block 902, method 900 may include receiving time-of-flight distance data from a time-of-flight sensor on the palm of the gripper. The data may be indicative of a direction from the palm of the gripper toward an area between a plurality of digits ( e.g., two opposable digits) of the gripper. The time-of-flight distance data may include a distance measurement to a nearest object in the direction toward the area between the digits.”, Column 22 lines 61-67, “At block 904, method 900 may include receiving gray scale image data from an infrared camera on the palm of the gripper. The image data may also be indicative of a direction from the palm of the gripper toward an area between a plurality of digits of the gripper.”, Column 23 lines 5-21, “At block 906, method 900 may further include controlling the gripper based on the time-of-flight distance data and the grayscale image data. More specifically, data from the time-of-flight sensor and the infrared camera may be fused together, possibly in addition to data from other sensors, in order to generate control instructions for the gripper.”);
and gripping at least one protruding or upstanding formation on a pot lid (Bingham: Figures 2 and 3, Column 26 lines 34-47, “At block 1502, the method 1500 may include controlling a robotic gripping device to cause a plurality of digits of the robotic gripping device to move towards each other in an attempt to grasp an object. More specifically, a control system of a robot may identify an object in the environment for the gripper to pick up based on sensor data from one or more sensors remote from the gripper and/or on the gripper. The control system may then move the gripper to a position where the object is between the digits (e.g., two opposable digits) before actuating the digits to attempt to grasp the object. In some examples, imperfect perception information, unexpected object properties, unexpected environmental conditions, and/or other factors may cause a grasp attempt to fail.”, Column 37 lines 45-60, “At block 1508, the method 1500 may include determining, using an object-in-hand classifier that takes as input the first sensor data and the second sensor data, a result of the attempt to grasp the object.”. As can be seen from the cited figures the robot is configured to grasp objects. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the robot system disclosed would be able to grip a protrusion on a pot lid.).
Bingham does not teach wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus.
Tedbury, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus (Tedbury: Page 8 lines 29-51, “Figure 8 shows a perspective view of the exposed workings of an exemplary robot gripper 82040, shown clasping a typical brick 82090. The mechanism is composed of a main plate 8250, which is approximately square. This is joined to the rest of the robot’s mechanism via a bearing joint 8260 which allows the whole gripper assembly to rotate around the vertical axis. A central hole within this bearing allows wires to pass to the rest of the gripper mechanism while it rotates. A linear actuator is mounted in the middle of the plate 8270, controlling the movement of the two gripper jaws 8050-1. The jaws can move horizontally in a linear motion, moving closer together or further apart. The jaw ends consist of a vertically mounted flat plate 8050-1 which interfaces with the side of the brick. The plate may have a shaped or stepped end profile to allow it to also interface with the top of the brick, thus calibrating the brick’s vertical and lateral position. At each comer of the plate is a sensor see figure 9 to measure distance between the top of the brick and the plate. Arranged in symmetrical pairs, there are tapping or vibration mechanisms 8280 to adjust the relative position of the brick once it has been placed on to the mortar bed and released from the gripper jaws.”. As can be seen from the cited passage, the end effector has a vibration mechanism configured vibrate the end effector and, by extension, the object that is being gripped.).
The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not combine the system for grasping pot lids and the vibration device into a single reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have combine the system for grasping pot lids taught in Bingham with the vibration device taught in Tedbury. Furthermore, the robotic systems in both Bingham and Tedbury consist of an end effector with a jaw-like gripping device configured to grip objects, so modifying robotic system in Bingham with the vibration device in Tedbury would not change or introduce new functionality to either. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a robotic manipulator with an end effector that has a device to apply vibrations to a gripped object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine system for handling potlids taught in Bingham with the vibration device taught in Tedbury with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Bingham in view of Tedbury does not teach wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus.
Grass, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus (Grass: Figure 1, Abstract, “A system and a method are disclosed for applying a vibration to a container comprising a content, said container held by an end effector attached to a mechatronic manipulator, the system comprising a vibration generator operatively coupled to at least one of the end effector and the mechatronic manipulator at an operating distance from the container such that when said vibration generator is in operation, said vibration generator causes said container to vibrate accordingly and a controller operatively connected to the vibration generator, the controller for generating and providing a controlling signal to the vibration generator.”, ¶ 0069, “The robotic system 50 comprises, inter alia, a mechatronic manipulator 100 and an end effector 200. A container 404 comprising a content 405 is held by the end effector 200 of the robotic system 50.”, ¶ 0071, “The skilled addressee will appreciate that the mechatronic manipulator 100 may be of various types. For instance and in accordance with one embodiment, the mechatronic manipulator 100 is a six-axis robotic arm and is manufactured by Universal Robots. In another embodiment, the mechatronic manipulator 100 is a Cartesian robot and is manufactured by Yamaha Motor. In another embodiment, the mechatronic manipulator 100 is a SCARA robot and is manufactured by Epson. The skilled addressee will appreciate that various alternative embodiments may be provided for the mechatronic manipulator 100.”, ¶ 0073, “The skilled addressee will appreciate that the end effector 200 may be of various types depending for instance on the container to be held. In one embodiment, the end effector 200 is a robotic gripper manufactured by Robotiq. In another embodiment, the end effector 200 is a vacuum gripper and is manufactured by Coval. In another embodiment, the end effector 200 is a magnetic gripper and is manufactured by SMC Corporation of America. The skilled addressee will appreciate that various alternative embodiments may be provided for the end effector 200.”, ¶ 0077, “The system comprises a vibration generator operatively coupled to at least one of the end effector 200 and the mechatronic manipulator 100 at an operating distance from the container 404 such that when the vibration generator is in operation, the vibration generator causes the container 404 to vibrate accordingly.”, ¶ 0086, “More precisely, the end effector 200 is a robotic gripper comprising at least one finger used for holding the container 404. It will be appreciated that in this specific embodiment, the system for applying a vibration to the container 404 comprises a vibration generator 300 which is operatively coupled to the end effector 200. More precisely and in this specific embodiment, the vibration generator 300 is mounted inside a first finger 210a of the at least one finger of the end effector 200.”, ¶ 0113, “More specifically, in this embodiment two vibration motors 700, 702 are integrated each in a respective one of the first finger 210a and the second finger 210b of the end effector 200.”, ¶ 0125, “According to processing step 904, the determined controlling signal is provided to a vibration generator operatively coupled to at least one of the end effector and the mechatronic manipulator at an operating distance from the container such that when the vibration generator is in operation, the vibration generator causes the container to vibrate accordingly.”. The cited passages clearly shows that the system comprises a robot with an end effector that has a vibrating mechanism coupled to it, wherein the system is configured to vibrate an object held by said end effector. On of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the system has structure that would have been able to grip and apply a vibration to a pot lid.).
Bingham in view of Tedbury teaches method for handling a pot lid in an aluminium production plant; the method comprising: providing a lid handling system comprising; a robot assembly comprising at least one manipulator arm; a lid gripper apparatus mounted at one end of the at least one manipulator arm; and a sensor system; wherein the sensor system is operable to generate position information to control the position of the at least one manipulator arm and/or the lid gripper apparatus; wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus; and gripping at least one protruding or upstanding formation on a pot lid. Bingham in view of Tedbury does not teach wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus. Grass teaches wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the method taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury with wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus taught in Grass. Furthermore, the method taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury already teaches a robotic manipulator configured to grasp an object and a vibrating mechanism disposed in the end effector. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the method taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury to apply a vibration to the grasped object as taught in Grass according to methods known in the art. Additionally, such a modification would not have changed or introduced new functionality. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a system for handling pot lids in an aluminium production plant wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury with wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus while the pot lid is gripped by the lid gripper apparatus taught in Grass with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass teaches comprising using data acquired by the vision system to move the lid gripper apparatus into alignment with the at least one protruding or upstanding formation on the pot lid (Bingham: Column 23 lines 5-21, “At block 906, method 900 may further include controlling the gripper based on the time-of-flight distance data and the grayscale image data. More specifically, data from the time-of-flight sensor and the infrared camera may be fused together, possibly in addition to data from other sensors, in order to generate control instructions for the gripper. The data fusion may involve heuristics-based and/or machine learning models. The control instructions may relate to a first temporal phase before grasping an object (e.g., identifying an object to grasp, approaching the object, determining an appropriate stopping distance, and/or visual servoing). The control instructions may also relate to a second temporal phase after an attempted grasp ( e.g., confirming grasp success, evaluating quality of the grasp, and/or determining properties of the object). The control instructions may also relate to a third temporal phase after a successful grasp ( e.g., 20 slip detection while moving a grasped object).”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the robot is configured to identify the object to be grasped, and move to and align itself with the object to be grasped. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would see that the object can clearly include a protrusion or upstanding formation on a pot lid.).
Regarding claim 19, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass teaches comprising moving a support, vehicle, crane, positioning system and/or at least one positioning member of a positioning system on which the robot assembly is mounted (Tedbury: Page 8 lines 19-28, “The robot further comprises a main effector, such as an end effector. The main effector may be a main gripper. The main gripper is configured to grip structural units, such as a brick. The main gripper moves horizontally along the main chassis independently of the two legs. It is mounted on the underside of the chassis, between the paths of the two legs.”, Page 20 lines 16-29, “Once this action has been decided the joint movements for the action are calculated 18480. These could be the joint movements for stepping to the location on the build site that the robot is required to reach or the actions for placing a brick etc.”. As can be seen from the cited passages, the robotic manipulator is configured to move horizontal along the main chassis and the legs of the system are configured such that they can move the entirety of the robotic system.).
Regarding claim 22, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass teaches comprising detecting the position of the at least one protruding or upstanding formation on the lid using sensor data from the vision system (Bingham: Column 23 lines 5-21, “At block 906, method 900 may further include controlling the gripper based on the time-of-flight distance data and the grayscale image data. More specifically, data from the time-of-flight sensor and the infrared camera may be fused together, possibly in addition to data from other sensors, in order to generate control instructions for the gripper. The data fusion may involve heuristics-based and/or machine learning models. The control instructions may relate to a first temporal phase before grasping an object (e.g., identifying an object to grasp, approaching the object, determining an appropriate stopping distance, and/or visual servoing).”).
Claim(s) 2 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10792809 B2 ("Bingham") in view of WO 2020136563 A2 ("Tedbury") in further view of US 2021/0213479 A1 ("Grass") in further view of WO 2016016516 A1 ("Sylvain").
Regarding claim 2, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass does not teach wherein the at least one protruding or upstanding formation on a pot lid is a handle and/or at least one step on a pot lid.
Sylvain, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one protruding or upstanding formation on a pot lid is a handle and/or at least one step on a pot lid (Sylvain: ¶ 0080, “The covers 33 are held in position under the effect of their own weight, without locking device. For example, the weight of a hood 33 may be of the order of ten kilos or more. The covers 33 are generally provided with a handle 34 intended for handling by operators.”).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art does not combine the system for handling potlids and protrusion of the potlid being a handle into a single combine apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to modify the system for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass such that the potlid includes a protrusion that is a handle. Furthermore, the robotic manipulator is configured such that it can grasp objects that take on a plurality of different shapes, so modifying the potlid such that it includes a protrusion that is a handle would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a system for handling potlids where the potlids include a handle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine system for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass with the protrusion being a handle or step on a pot lid taught in Sylvain with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 24, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass does not teach comprising lifting the lid a first distance from the pot before moving the lid in at least one direction to move adjacent pot lids laterally along the pot to increase or create a space between the lid and the laterally adjacent lids.
Sylvain, in the same field of endeavor, teaches comprising lifting the lid a first distance from the pot before moving the lid in at least one direction to move adjacent pot lids laterally along the pot to increase or create a space between the lid and the laterally adjacent lids (Sylvain: ¶ 0126, “Then, the chassis 51 of the vehicle 50 remaining in said predetermined position, the articulated arm 52 takes a first cover 33 of a cell 3 and deposits it on another cover 33 or on the floor of the installation 1, then takes a second cover 33 of the same cell 3 and the deposit on the first cover 33.”. As can be seen from the cited passage, the robot is configured to lift a cover off the pot and move it laterally to place it on an adjacent cover in order to create an opening in the pot.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass with the method of lifting and moving the lid laterally to create an opening taught in Sylvain with a reasonable chance of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the lids must be removed in order to gain access to the interior of the cells to perform various operations. It then becomes necessary to automate this procedure in order to ensure the safety of the human operators and ensure the quality and regularity of the operations (Sylvain: ¶ 0009, “The rollover device comprises removable covers that allow access to the interior of the cell, especially when replacing a worn anode with a new anode. Access to the interior of the cell may also be required during other interventions, such as liquid metal removal, bathing cover or various maintenance operations. According to a first known method, the covers are removed from the cell and replaced manually, one by one, by a ground operator. The operator is then exposed to risks related to the proximity of the electrolysis cell and the presence of handling tools. In particular, the position of taking and removing the covers forces the operator to lean towards the cell. As the covers are based on reduced surfaces, the incorrect positioning of a cover can lead to a bad support of it on the cell, unbalance the operator and risk of falling into the tank. On the other hand, the removal of the hoods reduces the efficiency of the collection device and exposes the operator to the effluents of the cell, which requires him to wear protective masks. In addition, a disadvantage inherent in manual operations is the difficulty of guaranteeing the quality and regularity of these operations.”).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10792809 B2 ("Bingham") in view of WO 2020136563 A2 ("Tedbury") in further view of US 2021/0213479 A1 ("Grass") in further view of US 11865707 B2 ("Kalouche").
Regarding claim 5, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass does not teach wherein the support, vehicle, crane, positioning system, or positioning member comprise a plurality of positional markers.
Kalouche, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the support, vehicle, crane, positioning system, or positioning member comprise a plurality of positional markers (Kalouche: Column 14 lines 1-42, “The local feature positioning system on the other hand may utilize conductive, capacitive, infrared (IR) or other sensors used to detect features within the warehouse, for example, a sensor to detect and count rail or grid space crossings, a magnetic sensor designed to detect magnets or ferrous material in grid 126, an imager to read barcodes or AR/QR codes on bins 110, the rails or other structures (which can subsequently be relayed to the remote processor 103 to determine the location of the mobile manipulator robot), an imager capable of performing simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), encoders in the mobility assembly 204 to measure distances traveled, magnetic, NFC, RFID, or any other type of positioning sensor within any of the mobile robots described herein and/or the grid so long as the remote computer can determine the location of each individual mobile robot and control the position of each individual mobile robot.”, Column 31 lines 28-51, “Container retrieval device 668 may further include a sensor 688 such as a camera, depth imager, or similar device to align the hoist plate to the top of container 110. The sensor can use markers such as AR tags or barcodes on containers 110, or otherwise use features of the container itself, to facilitate proper alignment.”).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art does not combine the system for handling potlids and the use of positional markers into a single reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the system for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass with the method of using positional markers taught in Kalouche. Furthermore, the robotic system taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass discloses a positioning system used to control the position of the robotic system, so modifying the robotic system such that it uses positional markers would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a robotic system that uses positional markers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine system for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass with the plurality of positional markers taught in Kalouche with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass in further view of Kalouche teaches wherein the plurality of positional markers is selected from the group comprising barcodes, data matrix codes, quick response codes and/or colour codes (Kalouche: Column 14 lines 1-42, “The local feature positioning system on the other hand may utilize conductive, capacitive, infrared (IR) or other sensors used to detect features within the warehouse, for example, a sensor to detect and count rail or grid space crossings, a magnetic sensor designed to detect magnets or ferrous material in grid 126, an imager to read barcodes or AR/QR codes on bins 110, the rails or other structures (which can subsequently be relayed to the remote processor 103 to determine the location of the mobile manipulator robot), an imager capable of performing simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), encoders in the mobility assembly 204 to measure distances traveled, magnetic, NFC, RFID, or any other type of positioning sensor within any of the mobile robots described herein and/or the grid so long as the remote computer can determine the location of each individual mobile robot and control the position of each individual mobile robot.”, Column 31 lines 28-51, “Container retrieval device 668 may further include a sensor 688 such as a camera, depth imager, or similar device to align the hoist plate to the top of container 110. The sensor can use markers such as AR tags or barcodes on containers 110, or otherwise use features of the container itself, to facilitate proper alignment.”).
Regarding claim 7, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass in further view of Kalouche teaches wherein the sensor system comprises at least one sensor is configured to detect at least one of the plurality of positional markers to accurately locate and/or move the position of the support, vehicle, crane, positioning system and/or at least one positioning member (Kalouche: Column 14 lines 1-42, “The local feature positioning system on the other hand may utilize conductive, capacitive, infrared (IR) or other sensors used to detect features within the warehouse, for example, a sensor to detect and count rail or grid space crossings, a magnetic sensor designed to detect magnets or ferrous material in grid 126, an imager to read barcodes or AR/QR codes on bins 110, the rails or other structures (which can subsequently be relayed to the remote processor 103 to determine the location of the mobile manipulator robot), an imager capable of performing simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), encoders in the mobility assembly 204 to measure distances traveled, magnetic, NFC, RFID, or any other type of positioning sensor within any of the mobile robots described herein and/or the grid so long as the remote computer can determine the location of each individual mobile robot and control the position of each individual mobile robot.”, Column 31 lines 28-51, “Container retrieval device 668 may further include a sensor 688 such as a camera, depth imager, or similar device to align the hoist plate to the top of container 110. The sensor can use markers such as AR tags or barcodes on containers 110, or otherwise use features of the container itself, to facilitate proper alignment.”. The cited passage clearly shows that a camera or other similar visual sensor is used to detect the markers and use them to properly align the robot, as well as determine the location of the robotic manipulator.).
Regarding claim 20, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass does not teach comprising detecting at least one positional marker on a support, vehicle, crane, positioning system and/or at least one positioning member of a positioning system to accurately locate the position of the robot assembly.
Kalouche, in the same field of endeavor, teaches comprising detecting at least one positional marker on a support, vehicle, crane, positioning system and/or at least one positioning member of a positioning system to accurately locate the position of the robot assembly (Kalouche: Column 14 lines 1-42, “The local feature positioning system on the other hand may utilize conductive, capacitive, infrared (IR) or other sensors used to detect features within the warehouse, for example, a sensor to detect and count rail or grid space crossings, a magnetic sensor designed to detect magnets or ferrous material in grid 126, an imager to read barcodes or AR/QR codes on bins 110, the rails or other structures (which can subsequently be relayed to the remote processor 103 to determine the location of the mobile manipulator robot), an imager capable of performing simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), encoders in the mobility assembly 204 to measure distances traveled, magnetic, NFC, RFID, or any other type of positioning sensor within any of the mobile robots described herein and/or the grid so long as the remote computer can determine the location of each individual mobile robot and control the position of each individual mobile robot.”. As can be seen from the cited passage, the markers can be used to determine the position of the robotic manipulator.).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art does not combine the system for handling potlids and method of using positional markers to determine the location of the robot assembly into a single reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the system for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass with method of using positional markers to determine the location of the robot assembly taught in Kalouche. Furthermore, the robotic system taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass discloses a positioning system used to control the position of the robotic system, so modifying the robotic system such that it uses positional markers would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a robotic system that uses positional markers to determine the location of the robot assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine method for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass with the method of using positional markers to determine the location of the robot assembly taught in Kalouche with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 21, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass does not teach comprising moving the support, vehicle, crane, positioning system and/or at least one positioning member of a positioning system support to align with at least one positional marker to accurately relocate the position of the robot assembly.
Kalouche, in the same field of endeavor, teaches comprising moving the support, vehicle, crane, positioning system and/or at least one positioning member of a positioning system support to align with at least one positional marker to accurately relocate the position of the robot assembly (Kalouche: Column 31 lines 28-51, “Container retrieval device 668 may further include a sensor 688 such as a camera, depth imager, or similar device to align the hoist plate to the top of container 110. The sensor can use markers such as AR tags or barcodes on containers 110, or otherwise use features of the container itself, to facilitate proper alignment.”. The cited passage clearly shows that a camera or other similar visual sensor is used to detect the markers and use them to properly align the robot.).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art does not combine the system for handling potlids and method of using positional markers to relocate the position of the robot assembly into a single reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the system for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass with method of using positional markers to relocate the position of the robot assembly taught in Kalouche. Furthermore, the robotic system taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass discloses a positioning system used to control the position of the robotic system, so modifying the robotic system such that it uses positional markers would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a robotic system that uses positional markers to relocate the position of the robot assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine method for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass with the method of using positional markers to relocate the position of the robot assembly taught in Kalouche with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10792809 B2 ("Bingham") in view of WO 2020136563 A2 ("Tedbury") in further view of US 2021/0213479 A1 ("Grass") in further view of US 11097418 B2 ("Nagarajan").
Regarding claim 8, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass does not teach wherein the sensor system is configured to generate 3D position information of a pot, a pot lid, a lid handle, a lid step, a potline, a pot room and/or a part of the pot room, the robot assembly, at least one manipulator arm and/or lid gripper apparatus.
Nagarajan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the sensor system is configured to generate 3D position information of a pot, a pot lid, a lid handle, a lid step, a potline, a pot room and/or a part of the pot room, the robot assembly, at least one manipulator arm and/or lid gripper apparatus (Nagarajan: Column 9 lines 13-43, “Stereographic camera 184 is also illustrated in FIG. 1. In some implementations, a stereographic camera includes two or more sensors ( e.g., charge-coupled devices (CCDs )), each at a different vantage point and each generating image data. Each of the two sensors generates image data and the image data from each sensor at a given instance may be utilized to generate a two-dimensional ("2D") image at the given instance. Moreover, based on image data generated by the two sensors, three-dimensional ("3D") vision data may also be generated in the form of an image with a "depth" channel, where each of the points of the 3D vision data defines a 3D coordinate of a surface of a corresponding object.”, Column 10 lines 4-18, “The robot 190 also includes a monographic camera 196A and a 3D laser scanner 196B. A monographic camera captures image data and the image data at a given instance may be utilized to generate a two-dimensional ("2D") image at the given instance. A 3D laser scanner includes one or more lasers that emit light and one or more sensors that generate sensor data related to reflections of the emitted light. The generated sensor data from a 3D laser scanner may be utilized to generate a 3D point cloud, where each of the 3D points of the 3D point cloud defines a 3D coordinate of a surface of a corresponding object. A 3D laser scanner may be, for example, a time-of-flight 3D laser scanner or a triangulation based 3D laser seamier and may include a position sensitive detector (PSD) or other optical position sensor.”. Even though the cited passage does not explicitly teach generating 3D position information of a pot, a pot lid, a lid handle, a lid step, a potline, a pot room and/or a part of the pot room, one of ordinary skill in the art would see that by using a stereoscopic camera or a 3D laser scanner to generate position information of objects, the system taught in the cited passage would be fully capable of generating 3D position information of a pot, a pot lid, a lid handle, a lid step, a potline, a pot room and/or a part of the pot room.).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art does not combine the system for handling potlids and the method of generating 3D position information into a single reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have combine the method of generating 3D position information taught in Nagarajan with the system for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass. Furthermore, the system taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass teaches using sensors that supply 3D position information and teaches using the position information to control the robot, but does not explicitly teach that the position information being used is three-dimensional. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the system taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass to use the 3D position information from the sensors as taught in Nagarajan without changing or introducing new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a system for handling potlids that generates 3D position information using the sensing system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the system for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass with the method of generating 3D position information taught in Nagarajan with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because it would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10792809 B2 ("Bingham") in view of WO 2020136563 A2 ("Tedbury") in further view of US 2021/0213479 A1 ("Grass") in further view of CN 108621175 A ("Liu").
Regarding claim 18, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass does not teach comprising verifying that the lid is attached to the at least one protruding or upstanding formation on the lid using data acquired by the sensor system.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches comprising verifying that the lid is attached to the at least one protruding or upstanding formation on the lid using data acquired by the sensor system (Liu: Abstract, “A three-dimensional positioning object handle is a handle which can be attached to a wide variety of articles and is provided with a rectangular coordinate system, and is used for identifying, positioning and grabbing the object with a household service robot. The robot only needs to visually identify, locate and grasp the three-dimensional positioning object handle, so that the object does not need to be recognized and grasped. By means of the three-dimensional positioning object handle, the robot visual identification algorithm can be greatly simplified, and the robot can accurately call objects attached with the three-dimensional positioning object handle.”, ¶ 0008, “In this way, although the objects are diverse and have different shapes, the three-dimensional positioning handle is of a standard shape. After the three-dimensional positioning handle is attached to the object, it can be recognized and grasped by the robot.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that because the robot is configured to grasp the handle to the object, the robot first determines that the handle is attached to an object. This is obvious because the robot only grips objects with the handle.).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art does not combine the method for handling potlids and the method for determining if a protrusion is attached to the lid into a single reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the method for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass with the method of determining if the protrusion is attached to the lid taught in Liu. Furthermore, the method taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass is already configured to be able to perform object identification and gasp success determination based on sensor data, so modifying the method to make an additional determination using sensor data that has already been received, such as determining if the handle is connected to the lid, would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a method for handling potlids that determines if the protrusion is attached to the lid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass with the method of determining if the protrusion is attached to the lid taught in Liu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have yielded to predictable results.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10792809 B2 ("Bingham") in view of WO 2020136563 A2 ("Tedbury") in further view of US 2021/0213479 A1 ("Grass") in further view of US 9020636 B2 ("Tadayon").
Regarding claim 23, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass does not teach comprising applying a force and/or energy to the lid via the at least one protruding or upstanding formation to remove dust and/or debris from a surface of the lid.
Tadayon, in the same field of endeavor, teaches comprising applying a force and/or energy to the lid via the at least one protruding or upstanding formation to remove dust and/or debris from a surface of the lid (Tadayon: Column 14 lines 5-17, “ In one embodiment, FIG. 16b shows a robot in action/cleaning, which is monitored in real-time or on-spot, using a camera connected to HQ, with a light illuminating the panel for inspection, analyzing the images at HQ, for pattern recognition or surface analysis, to stop the cleaning or do more, depending the quality (status) of the surface, if needed, based on some threshold or range of cleanliness, as a number, percentage, or parameter for quantization of surface status. The brush can have a sensor, e.g. on the back, such as using piezoelectric sensor, to measure pressure, for adjustment of the force behind the arm/brush, for good attachment to the surface, without too much force, as a feedback, to prevent damage to the brush or robot or panel.”. As can be seen from the cited passage, the robot is clearly configured to apply a force to clean the object.).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art does not combine the method for handling potlids and the method of applying a force to the lid to clean it into a single combine reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the method for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass with the method of applying a force to the potlid to clean it taught in Tadayon. Furthermore, the robotic system taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass is already configured to apply a vibrational force to a gripped object, so modifying the robot such that it applies a force for the purposes of cleaning would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a method for handling potlids that applies a force to the lid to clean it.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine method for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass with the method of applying a force to the lid taught in Tadayon with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10792809 B2 ("Bingham") in view of WO 2020136563 A2 ("Tedbury") in further view of US 2021/0213479 A1 ("Grass") in further view of WO 2016016516 A1 ("Sylvain") in further view of US 11865707 B2 ("Kalouche").
Regarding claim 25, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass does not teach comprising moving the lid to a lid storage area and verifying the correct placement of the lid in the lid storage area using the sensor system.
Sylvain, in the same field of endeavor, teaches moving the lid (Sylvain: ¶ 0126, “Then, the chassis 51 of the vehicle 50 remaining in said predetermined position, the articulated arm 52 takes a first cover 33 of a cell 3 and deposits it on another cover 33 or on the floor of the installation 1, then takes a second cover 33 of the same cell 3 and the deposit on the first cover 33.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass with the method of lifting and moving the lid laterally to create an opening taught in Sylvain with a reasonable chance of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the lids must be removed in order to gain access to the interior of the cells to perform various operations. It then becomes necessary to automate this procedure in order to ensure the safety of the human operators and ensure the quality and regularity of the operations (Sylvain: ¶ 0009, “The rollover device comprises removable covers that allow access to the interior of the cell, especially when replacing a worn anode with a new anode. Access to the interior of the cell may also be required during other interventions, such as liquid metal removal, bathing cover or various maintenance operations. According to a first known method, the covers are removed from the cell and replaced manually, one by one, by a ground operator. The operator is then exposed to risks related to the proximity of the electrolysis cell and the presence of handling tools. In particular, the position of taking and removing the covers forces the operator to lean towards the cell. As the covers are based on reduced surfaces, the incorrect positioning of a cover can lead to a bad support of it on the cell, unbalance the operator and risk of falling into the tank. On the other hand, the removal of the hoods reduces the efficiency of the collection device and exposes the operator to the effluents of the cell, which requires him to wear protective masks. In addition, a disadvantage inherent in manual operations is the difficulty of guaranteeing the quality and regularity of these operations.”).
Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass in further view of Sylvain does not teach comprising moving the lid to a lid storage area and verifying the correct placement of the lid in the lid storage area using the sensor system.
Kalouche, in the same field of endeavor, teaches comprising moving the lid to a lid storage area and verifying the correct placement of the lid in the lid storage area using the sensor system (Kalouche: Column 19 lines 26-55, “FIGS. 12A and 12B illustrate an example embodiment of picking arm 206 coupled to pneumatic gripping tool 248. Picking arm 206 is moveable with several degrees of freedom to position pneumatic gripping tool 248 relative to inventory stored in any location within a container 110 and has long stroke (in the Z-direction) to allow robot 200 to lift any sized item from the container and to deposit the item in order bin 214.”, Column 24 lines 29-58, “ Referring back to FIG. 9B, one or more sensors 264, such as a scanner, may be positioned on the vehicle body 202 or the picking arm 206 of robot 200 to scan picked products and determine and/or verify which order bin 214 the picked product should be deposited. The scanning field of the scanners may be multiplied by positioning mirrors on the inner surfaces of sidewalls 208. Sensors 264 or another sensor may be used to capture an image or data of a grasped product after it has been picked (and before it has been deposited in order bins 214) to identify and/or determine the size and dimensions of the item.”).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art does not combine the method for handling potlids and the method for moving the lids to a storage area and verifying the correct placement of the lid into a single reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the method of handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass in further view of Sylvain with the method for moving the lids to a storage area and verifying the correct placement of the lid taught in Kalouche. Furthermore, the robotic system taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass in further view of Sylvain is configured to verify if a grasping attempt was successful and is configured to move and store the lids on top of an adjacent lid that is still attached to the cell, so modifying the system such that it moves the lids to a storage area and verifies their placement as taught in Kalouche would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a method for handling potlids that stores the lids in a storage area and verifies their placement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method of handling pot lids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass in further view of Sylvain with the method of storing the lids in a storage area and verifying their placement taught in Kalouche with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 26, Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass does not teach comprising gripping at least one protruding or upstanding formation of a lid located in a lid storage area and returning the lid to a pot and verifying the correct placement of the lid on the pot using the sensor system.
Sylvain in the same field of endeavor teaches comprising gripping at least one protruding or upstanding formation of a lid and returning the lid to a pot and verifying the correct placement of the lid on the pot using the sensor system (Sylvain: ¶ 0094, “In the embodiment shown, the free end portion of the articulated arm 52 is equipped with a gripping device 56 adapted to grip a cover 33, for example by its handle 34,…”, ¶ 0117, “Then the vehicle 50 performs the task by means of the articulated arm 52. The vehicle 50 can then confirm that the task has been correctly completed…”, ¶ 0118, “In the embodiment described, the task of the vehicle 50 is to remove one or more covers 33 of the cells 3, for subsequent operations in these cells, such as the change of anode for example. For this purpose, the articulated arm 52 can be equipped with a detection device (not shown) of a cover 33. As for the gripping device 56, it can use a plurality of organs to grip the cover 33 and be devoid of cupping. Indeed, these require a bulky and energy-consuming pneumatic system which would considerably limit the autonomy of the vehicle 50. Another task of the articulated arm 52 of the vehicle 50 and then to clean the guide groove 35 of the cell, by means of of the cleaning tool 57, and finally to replace the (s) hood (s) 33.”. As can be seen from the cited passages, the robotic system is configured to remove and the return the lids to the pot and confirm the task has been completed correctly.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method for handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass with the method of lifting and moving the lid laterally to create an opening taught in Sylvain with a reasonable chance of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the lids must be removed in order to gain access to the interior of the cells to perform various operations. It then becomes necessary to automate this procedure in order to ensure the safety of the human operators and ensure the quality and regularity of the operations (Sylvain: ¶ 0009, “The rollover device comprises removable covers that allow access to the interior of the cell, especially when replacing a worn anode with a new anode. Access to the interior of the cell may also be required during other interventions, such as liquid metal removal, bathing cover or various maintenance operations. According to a first known method, the covers are removed from the cell and replaced manually, one by one, by a ground operator. The operator is then exposed to risks related to the proximity of the electrolysis cell and the presence of handling tools. In particular, the position of taking and removing the covers forces the operator to lean towards the cell. As the covers are based on reduced surfaces, the incorrect positioning of a cover can lead to a bad support of it on the cell, unbalance the operator and risk of falling into the tank. On the other hand, the removal of the hoods reduces the efficiency of the collection device and exposes the operator to the effluents of the cell, which requires him to wear protective masks. In addition, a disadvantage inherent in manual operations is the difficulty of guaranteeing the quality and regularity of these operations.”).
Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass in further view of Sylvain does not teach comprising gripping at least one protruding or upstanding formation of a lid located in a lid storage area.
Kalouche, in the same field of endeavor, teaches comprising gripping at least one protruding or upstanding formation of a lid located in a lid storage area (Kalouche: Column 19 lines 26-55, “FIGS. 12A and 12B illustrate an example embodiment of picking arm 206 coupled to pneumatic gripping tool 248. Picking arm 206 is moveable with several degrees of freedom to position pneumatic gripping tool 248 relative to inventory stored in any location within a container 110 and has long stroke (in the Z-direction) to allow robot 200 to lift any sized item from the container and to deposit the item in order bin 214.”, Column 24 lines 29-58, “ Referring back to FIG. 9B, one or more sensors 264, such as a scanner, may be positioned on the vehicle body 202 or the picking arm 206 of robot 200 to scan picked products and determine and/or verify which order bin 214 the picked product should be deposited. The scanning field of the scanners may be multiplied by positioning mirrors on the inner surfaces of sidewalls 208. Sensors 264 or another sensor may be used to capture an image or data of a grasped product after it has been picked (and before it has been deposited in order bins 214) to identify and/or determine the size and dimensions of the item.”).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art does not combine the method for handling potlids and the method for removing the lids from a storage area into a single reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the method of handling potlids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass in further view of Sylvain with the method of removing the lids from a storage area taught in Kalouche. Furthermore, even though Kalouche does not explicitly disclose removing the items placed in the order bin, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the method taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass in further view of Sylvain with a similar method of storage without changing or introducing new functionality. Additionally, modifying the method to remove the lids from the storage area would not change or introduce new functionality, as the general method of grasping and transporting the lids remains the same regardless of where the lids are located. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a method of handling potlids that removes the lids from a storage area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method of handling pot lids taught in Bingham in view of Tedbury in further view of Grass in further view of Sylvain with the method of removing the lids from a storage area taught in Kalouche with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have yielded predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 7th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on Pages 12-13, Applicant argues that there is not motivation to combine Bingham and Tedbury. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specific rationale relied upon to combine the prior art references was combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention was not relied upon. MPEP 2143(A) describes the requirements to reject a claim under the used rationale. The following points must be articulate: (1) a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; (2) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. With regards to the combination of Bingham in view of Tedbury, it is obvious from the previous Non-Final Office Action mailed July 7th, 2025 and above in this Final Office action that Bingham teaches a system comprising: a robot assembly comprising at least one manipulator arm (Bingham: Figures 2 and 3, Column 8 lines 15-24, Column 12 lines 40-46, Column 13 lines 28-32); a lid gripper apparatus configured to grip at least one protruding or upstanding formation on a pot lid (Bingham: Figures 2 and 3, Column 26 lines 34-47, Column 37 lines 45-60), the lid gripper apparatus mounted at one end of the at least one manipulator arm (Bingham: Figures 2 and 3, Column 12 lines 47-62); and a sensor system; wherein the sensor system is operable to generate position information to control the position of the at least one manipulator arm and/or lid gripper apparatus (Bingham: Column 10 lines 28-57, Column 22 lines 44-60, Column 22 lines 61-67, Column 23 lines 5-21) and that Tedbury teaches wherein the lid gripper apparatus comprises at least one vibration device, knocking device and/or impact device configured to transmit vibrational waves and/or impact forces through at least a component of the lid gripper apparatus (Tedbury: Page 8 lines 29-51). As can clearly be seen, Bingham and Tedbury include each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, meeting the first criteria for the rationale. Furthermore, as laid out in the second criteria, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been easily able to modify the end effector of the robot taught in Bingham with the vibration mechanism mounted on the end effector of the robot taught in Tedbury according to known methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the end effector taught in Bingham and vibration mechanism taught in Tedbury would retain the same functionality as the vibration mechanism of Tedbury was already coupled to the end effector of a robot. Additionally, as laid out in the third criteria, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would have yielded the predictable result of a robot wherein the sensor system is operable to generate position information to control the position of the at least one manipulator arm and/or lid gripper apparatus, as the vibrating mechanism taught in Tedbury was already coupled to the end effector of a robot. Therefore, the requirements for the rationale regarding the combination of Bingham in view of Tedbury have clearly been met.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 15, and 16 on Pages 13-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Noah W Stiebritz whose telephone number is (571)272-3414. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7-5 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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/N.W.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658