DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Drawing and Specification objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112 (b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Moreover, Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/14/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-46 have been considered but they are not persuasive or moot in view of new ground of rejection provided below which was necessitated based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims. The new ground of rejection for independent claims are based on Zhu in view of Rodriguez Garcia, and further in view of Solowjow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-6, 10-14, 19-22, 26-28, 33-36, and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (US 2021/0308866 A1) (Hereinafter Zhu) in view of Rodriguez Garcia et al. (US 11878415 B2) (Hereinafter Rodriguez Garcia), and further in view of Solowjow et al. (US 20230330858 A1) (Hereinafter Solowjow).
6. Regarding Claim 1, Zhu teaches a method of processing objects, said method comprising:
grasping an object with an end-effector of a programmable motion device (See at least Para [0023] “For each workpiece 130 in the bin 140, a new path must be computed by the controller 110 (or by another computer and then provided to the controller 110) which causes the robot 100 to move the gripper 102 from a home or approach position to pick up the workpiece 130 using a suitable grasp point and orientation, and move the workpiece 130 along a path to the goal position and orientation while avoiding obstacles such as the side of the bin 140, then return the gripper 102 to the home or approach position in preparation for the next workpiece 130…”);
…
determining a pose adjustment for repositioning the object for placement at a destination location in a destination pose responsive to the estimated pose of the object (See at least Para [0042] “To summarize FIG. 5A: the paths 540 from the initial pose of the workpiece 510 to each of the stable intermediate poses 520 are evaluated for feasibility; from each of the reachable intermediate poses 520, the paths 550 to the goal pose 530 are evaluated for feasibility; if more than one complete path is feasible, then the feasible complete paths are evaluated for optimality; an optimal path is chosen, and the robot is commanded to move the workpiece 510 from the initial pose to the selected intermediate pose M, re-grip and move the workpiece 510 to the goal pose 530. In the analysis carried out as shown on FIG. 5A, it is possible that no complete path is feasible; this might be the case when a workpiece is located in a corner of the bin, or the workpiece has an irregular design with few robust grasp points. If movement of a workpiece from the initial pose to the goal pose using a single intermediate pose M is not possible, then the search problem is re-formulated including a second stage of intermediate pose…”); and
placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose in accordance with the pose adjustment (See at least Para [0042] “To summarize FIG. 5A: the paths 540 from the initial pose of the workpiece 510 to each of the stable intermediate poses 520 are evaluated for feasibility; from each of the reachable intermediate poses 520, the paths 550 to the goal pose 530 are evaluated for feasibility; if more than one complete path is feasible, then the feasible complete paths are evaluated for optimality; an optimal path is chosen, and the robot is commanded to move the workpiece 510 from the initial pose to the selected intermediate pose M, re-grip and move the workpiece 510 to the goal pose 530. In the analysis carried out as shown on FIG. 5A, it is possible that no complete path is feasible; this might be the case when a workpiece is located in a corner of the bin, or the workpiece has an irregular design with few robust grasp points. If movement of a workpiece from the initial pose to the goal pose using a single intermediate pose M is not possible, then the search problem is re-formulated including a second stage of intermediate pose…”).
Zhu does not explicitly spell out …
positioning the object over one or more perception units by the end-effector of the programmable motion device;
determining an estimated pose of the object based on perception data captured by the one or more perception units as the object is held over the one or more perception units by the end-effector; …
Solowjow teaches …
positioning the object over one or more perception units by the end-effector of the programmable motion device (See at least Para [0036] “… Capturing the second image of the first object can include positioning the first object, by the robot, over a second camera…”, Fig 1);
… as the object is held over the one or more perception units by the end-effector (See at least Para [0036] “… Capturing the second image of the first object can include positioning the first object, by the robot, over a second camera…”, Fig 1)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Solowjow and include the feature of positioning the object over one or more perception units by the end-effector of the programmable motion device to estimate the pose of the object, thereby provide precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object and increase efficiency (See at least Par [0002] “Three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of an object or of an environment can create a digital twin or model of a given environment of a robot, or of a robot or portion of a robot, which can enable a robot to learn some skills efficiently and safely.”).
Rodriguez Garcia teaches …
determining an estimated pose of the based on perception data captured by the one or more perception units (See at least Col 10 Lines 4-7 “FIG. 7 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of a method 540 of controlling an object state. Controlling an object state may include estimating a pose of an object based on signals received from a tactile sensor, as indicated at 542…”) … ; …
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia and include the feature of determining an estimated pose of the object as it is being grasped by the end-effector, thereby provide precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object.
7. Regarding Claim 2, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 1. Zhu further teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further includes determining joint positions of each of a plurality of joints of the programmable motion device (See at least Para [0018] “A robot 100 having a gripper 102 operates within a workspace 104. Motion of the robot 100 is controlled by a controller 110, which typically communicates with the robot 100 via a cable 112. The controller 110 provides joint motion commands to the robot 100 and receives joint position data from encoders in the joints of the robot 100, as known in the art. The controller 110 also provides commands to control operation of the gripper 102…”).
8. Regarding Claim 3, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 2.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 2,
wherein the joint positions are associated with the estimated pose.
Rodriguez Garcia teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the joint
positions are associated with the estimated pose (See at least Col 7 Lines 47-51 “In some embodiments, a robotic system may include other sensors in addition to the tactile sensors that may be associated with one or more end effectors. For example, a robotic system may include joint sensors (e.g., encoders), force/torque sensors, cameras, or other sensors.”, Col 10 Lines 4-7 “FIG. 7 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of a method 540 of controlling an object state. Controlling an object state may include estimating a pose of an object based on signals received from a tactile sensor, as indicated at 542…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia and include the feature of joint positions which are associated with the estimated pose, thereby provide precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object.
9. Regarding Claim 4, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 3.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 3,
wherein the joint positions are determined when the end-effector is positioned at a pose-in-hand location.
Rodriguez Garcia teaches the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the joint
positions are determined when the end-effector is positioned at a pose-in-hand location (See at least Col 10 Lines 4-7 “FIG. 7 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of a method 540 of controlling an object state. Controlling an object state may include estimating a pose of an object based on signals received from a tactile sensor, as indicated at 542…”, discloses that pose is estimated based on signal received from a tactile sensor which is construed as the joint positions are determined when the end-effector is positioned at a pose-in-hand location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia and include the feature of the joint positions being determined when the end-effector is positioned at a pose-in-hand location, thereby provide precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object.
10. Regarding Claim 5, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 3.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the joint positions are estimated joint positions determined by interpolation.
Rodriguez Garcia teaches the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the joint positions are estimated joint positions determined by interpolation (See at least Col 4 Lines 24-29 “…For these primitives, the end effector pose trajectory may be determined by directly interpolating between initial and final poses of the object. For the pivot manipulation primitive, an interpolated object trajectory between the initial and final poses may be computed about a specified center of rotation…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia and include the feature of joint positions being estimated joint positions determined by interpolation, thereby provide precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object.
11. Regarding Claim 6, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 1.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein determining the estimated pose of the object is performed while the end-effector is moving the object over the one or more perception units.
Rodriguez Garcia teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining the estimated
pose of the object is performed while the end-effector is moving (See at least Claim 1 “… manipulating the object with the end effector according to the at least one trajectory to move the object to the desired pose; continuing to estimate the pose of the object and the contact state during manipulation of the object as the object is moved to the desired pose; and updating the at least one trajectory based on a change in the estimated pose and/or the contact state relative to the end effector during manipulation of the object as the object is moved to the desired pose …”)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhu with the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia and include the feature of determining an estimated pose of the object being performed while the end-effector is moving, thereby provide option of estimating object pose during end-effector movement in order for precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object.
Solowjow teaches … moving the object over the one or more perception units (See at least Para [0036] “… Capturing the second image of the first object can include positioning the first object, by the robot, over a second camera…”, Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Solowjow and include the feature of moving the object over the one or more perception units, thereby provide precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object and increase efficiency (See at least Par [0002] “Three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of an object or of an environment can create a digital twin or model of a given environment of a robot, or of a robot or portion of a robot, which can enable a robot to learn some skills efficiently and safely.”).
12. Regarding Claim 10, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 1. Zhu further teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining the pose adjustment includes determining any of a largest face, a smallest face or other face of the object to be facing up when placed at the destination location (See at least Para [0042] “To summarize FIG. 5A: the paths 540 from the initial pose of the workpiece 510 to each of the stable intermediate poses 520 are evaluated for feasibility; from each of the reachable intermediate poses 520, the paths 550 to the goal pose 530 are evaluated for feasibility; if more than one complete path is feasible, then the feasible complete paths are evaluated for optimality; an optimal path is chosen, and the robot is commanded to move the workpiece 510 from the initial pose to the selected intermediate pose M, re-grip and move the workpiece 510 to the goal pose 530. In the analysis carried out as shown on FIG. 5A, it is possible that no complete path is feasible; this might be the case when a workpiece is located in a corner of the bin, or the workpiece has an irregular design with few robust grasp points. If movement of a workpiece from the initial pose to the goal pose using a single intermediate pose M is not possible, then the search problem is re-formulated including a second stage of intermediate pose…”).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 1. Zhu further teaches the
method as claimed in claim 1, further comprises re-grasping the object in accordance with the pose adjustment (See at least Para [0042] “To summarize FIG. 5A: the paths 540 from the initial pose of the workpiece 510 to each of the stable intermediate poses 520 are evaluated for feasibility; from each of the reachable intermediate poses 520, the paths 550 to the goal pose 530 are evaluated for feasibility; if more than one complete path is feasible, then the feasible complete paths are evaluated for optimality; an optimal path is chosen, and the robot is commanded to move the workpiece 510 from the initial pose to the selected intermediate pose M, re-grip and move the workpiece 510 to the goal pose 530. In the analysis carried out as shown on FIG. 5A, it is possible that no complete path is feasible; this might be the case when a workpiece is located in a corner of the bin, or the workpiece has an irregular design with few robust grasp points. If movement of a workpiece from the initial pose to the goal pose using a single intermediate pose M is not possible, then the search problem is re-formulated including a second stage of intermediate pose…”, Para [0001] “The present disclosure relates to the field of industrial robot motion control and, more particularly, to a technique which plans a grasping pose of a robot gripper based on a predefined placement pose, where parts exist in random poses in a picking bin and a robot motion is found which picks a part from the bin and moves it to the defined placement location and pose in a single motion with no regrasping if possible, or in consecutive motions with minimum regrasping, while avoiding collisions of the robot with the bin, and remaining within robot joint motion limits.”).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 1. Zhu further teaches the
method as claimed in claim 11, wherein re-grasping the object in accordance with the pose adjustment includes re- grasping the object on a face of the object that is different than an initial face on which the object was initially grasped (See at least Fig 5A shows that the re-grasping of the object involves re- grasping the object on a face of the object that is different than an initial face on which the object was initially grasped, Para [0042] “To summarize FIG. 5A: the paths 540 from the initial pose of the workpiece 510 to each of the stable intermediate poses 520 are evaluated for feasibility; from each of the reachable intermediate poses 520, the paths 550 to the goal pose 530 are evaluated for feasibility; if more than one complete path is feasible, then the feasible complete paths are evaluated for optimality; an optimal path is chosen, and the robot is commanded to move the workpiece 510 from the initial pose to the selected intermediate pose M, re-grip and move the workpiece 510 to the goal pose 530. In the analysis carried out as shown on FIG. 5A, it is possible that no complete path is feasible; this might be the case when a workpiece is located in a corner of the bin, or the workpiece has an irregular design with few robust grasp points. If movement of a workpiece from the initial pose to the goal pose using a single intermediate pose M is not possible, then the search problem is re-formulated including a second stage of intermediate pose…”, Para [0001] “The present disclosure relates to the field of industrial robot motion control and, more particularly, to a technique which plans a grasping pose of a robot gripper based on a predefined placement pose, where parts exist in random poses in a picking bin and a robot motion is found which picks a part from the bin and moves it to the defined placement location and pose in a single motion with no regrasping if possible, or in consecutive motions with minimum regrasping, while avoiding collisions of the robot with the bin, and remaining within robot joint motion limits.”).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 1. Zhu further teaches the
method as claimed in claim 1, wherein placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose in accordance with the pose adjustment includes placing the object onto a receiving surface in the destination pose (See at least Para [0015] “…For example, in a pick, move and place operation, parts in a bin having random locations and orientations must be picked up by a robot and moved to a predefined pose (orientation) on a conveyor…”, Para [0017] “FIG. 1 is an illustration of workpieces in a bin which require placement at a predefined goal position and pose, such as on a conveyor. FIG. 1 illustrates an industrial robot performing a pick, move and place operation in a scenario of the type described above, where each individual workpiece in a bin requires a unique gripping solution, which in turn necessitates a unique movement, reorientation and placement solution. The robot must perform the pick/move/place operation reliably (all parts placed on the conveyor in the proper pose, and no dropped parts), and the operation must be 100% free of any collisions (such as between a robot arm and the bin)…”).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 13. Zhu further teaches the
method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the receiving surface is a portion of a conveyor (See at least Para [0015] “…For example, in a pick, move and place operation, parts in a bin having random locations and orientations must be picked up by a robot and moved to a predefined pose (orientation) on a conveyor…”, Para [0017] “FIG. 1 is an illustration of workpieces in a bin which require placement at a predefined goal position and pose, such as on a conveyor. FIG. 1 illustrates an industrial robot performing a pick, move and place operation in a scenario of the type described above, where each individual workpiece in a bin requires a unique gripping solution, which in turn necessitates a unique movement, reorientation and placement solution. The robot must perform the pick/move/place operation reliably (all parts placed on the conveyor in the proper pose, and no dropped parts), and the operation must be 100% free of any collisions (such as between a robot arm and the bin)…”).
Regarding Claim 19, Zhu teaches a method of processing objects, said method comprising:
grasping an object with an end-effector of a programmable motion device (See at least Para [0023] “For each workpiece 130 in the bin 140, a new path must be computed by the controller 110 (or by another computer and then provided to the controller 110) which causes the robot 100 to move the gripper 102 from a home or approach position to pick up the workpiece 130 using a suitable grasp point and orientation, and move the workpiece 130 along a path to the goal position and orientation while avoiding obstacles such as the side of the bin 140, then return the gripper 102 to the home or approach position in preparation for the next workpiece 130…”), the programmable motion device having a plurality of joints (See at least Fig 1 shows that the programmable motion device have a plurality of joints, Para [0003] “Systems exist which plan the motion of the robot for the pick and place application described above, while adhering to the physical limits of motion of the robot joints…”);
…
determining estimated joint positions of the plurality of joints of the programmable motion
device associated with the estimated pose of the object (See at least Para [0018] “A robot 100 having a gripper 102 operates within a workspace 104. Motion of the robot 100 is controlled by a controller 110, which typically communicates with the robot 100 via a cable 112. The controller 110 provides joint motion commands to the robot 100 and receives joint position data from encoders in the joints of the robot 100, as known in the art. The controller 110 also provides commands to control operation of the gripper 102…”);
…
determining placement pose information for placing the object at a destination location in a
destination pose based on the estimated joint positions associated with the estimated pose of the object (See at least Para [0042] “To summarize FIG. 5A: the paths 540 from the initial pose of the workpiece 510 to each of the stable intermediate poses 520 are evaluated for feasibility; from each of the reachable intermediate poses 520, the paths 550 to the goal pose 530 are evaluated for feasibility; if more than one complete path is feasible, then the feasible complete paths are evaluated for optimality; an optimal path is chosen, and the robot is commanded to move the workpiece 510 from the initial pose to the selected intermediate pose M, re-grip and move the workpiece 510 to the goal pose 530. In the analysis carried out as shown on FIG. 5A, it is possible that no complete path is feasible; this might be the case when a workpiece is located in a corner of the bin, or the workpiece has an irregular design with few robust grasp points. If movement of a workpiece from the initial pose to the goal pose using a single intermediate pose M is not possible, then the search problem is re-formulated including a second stage of intermediate pose…”); and
placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose based on the placement pose information (See at least Para [0042] “To summarize FIG. 5A: the paths 540 from the initial pose of the workpiece 510 to each of the stable intermediate poses 520 are evaluated for feasibility; from each of the reachable intermediate poses 520, the paths 550 to the goal pose 530 are evaluated for feasibility; if more than one complete path is feasible, then the feasible complete paths are evaluated for optimality; an optimal path is chosen, and the robot is commanded to move the workpiece 510 from the initial pose to the selected intermediate pose M, re-grip and move the workpiece 510 to the goal pose 530. In the analysis carried out as shown on FIG. 5A, it is possible that no complete path is feasible; this might be the case when a workpiece is located in a corner of the bin, or the workpiece has an irregular design with few robust grasp points. If movement of a workpiece from the initial pose to the goal pose using a single intermediate pose M is not possible, then the search problem is re-formulated including a second stage of intermediate pose…”).
Zhu does not explicitly spell out …
positioning the object over one or more perception units by the end-effector of the programmable motion device;
determining an estimated pose of the object based on perception data captured by the one or
more perception units as the object is held over the one or more perception units by the end-effector;
…
Solowjow teaches …
positioning the object over one or more perception units by the end-effector of the programmable motion device (See at least Para [0036] “… Capturing the second image of the first object can include positioning the first object, by the robot, over a second camera…”, Fig 1);
as the object is held over the one or more perception units by the end-effector (See at least Para [0036] “… Capturing the second image of the first object can include positioning the first object, by the robot, over a second camera…”, Fig 1);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Solowjow and include the feature of positioning the object over one or more perception units by the end-effector of the programmable motion device to estimate the pose of the object, thereby provide precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object and increase efficiency (See at least Par [0002] “Three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of an object or of an environment can create a digital twin or model of a given environment of a robot, or of a robot or portion of a robot, which can enable a robot to learn some skills efficiently and safely.”).
Rodriguez Garcia teaches …
determining an estimated pose of the object based on perception data captured by the one or
more perception units (See at least Col 10 Lines 4-7 “FIG. 7 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of a method 540 of controlling an object state. Controlling an object state may include estimating a pose of an object based on signals received from a tactile sensor, as indicated at 542…”);
…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia and include the feature of determining an estimated pose of the object as it is being grasped by the end-effector and also associate the estimated pose with the estimated joint positions to provide placement pose information, thereby provide precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 19.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein the joint
positions are determined when the end-effector is positioned at a pose-in-hand location.
Rodriguez Garcia teaches the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein the joint positions are
determined when the end-effector is positioned at a pose-in-hand location (See at least Col 10 Lines 4-7 “FIG. 7 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of a method 540 of controlling an object state. Controlling an object state may include estimating a pose of an object based on signals received from a tactile sensor, as indicated at 542…”, discloses that pose is estimated based on signal received from a tactile sensor which is construed as the joint positions are determined when the end-effector is positioned at a pose-in-hand location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia and include the feature of the joint positions being determined when the end-effector is positioned at a pose-in-hand location, thereby provide precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 19.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein the joint positions are estimated joint positions determined by interpolation.
Rodriguez Garcia teaches the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein the joint positions are estimated joint positions determined by interpolation (See at least Col 4 Lines 24-29 “…For these primitives, the end effector pose trajectory may be determined by directly interpolating between initial and final poses of the object. For the pivot manipulation primitive, an interpolated object trajectory between the initial and final poses may be computed about a specified center of rotation…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia and include the feature of joint positions are being estimated joint positions determined by interpolation, thereby provide precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 19.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 19,
wherein determining the estimated pose of the object is performed while the end-effector is moving the object over the one or more perception units.
Rodriguez Garcia teaches the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein determining the an
estimated pose of the object is performed while the end-effector is moving (See at least Claim 1 “… manipulating the object with the end effector according to the at least one trajectory to move the object to the desired pose; continuing to estimate the pose of the object and the contact state during manipulation of the object as the object is moved to the desired pose; and updating the at least one trajectory based on a change in the estimated pose and/or the contact state relative to the end effector during manipulation of the object as the object is moved to the desired pose …”)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhu with the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia and include the feature of determining an estimated pose of the object being performed while the end-effector is moving, thereby provide option of estimating object pose during end-effector movement in order for precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object.
Solowjow teaches … moving the object over the one or more perception units (See at least Para [0036] “… Capturing the second image of the first object can include positioning the first object, by the robot, over a second camera…”, Fig 1);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Solowjow and include the feature of moving the object over the one or more perception units, thereby provide precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object and increase efficiency (See at least Par [0002] “Three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of an object or of an environment can create a digital twin or model of a given environment of a robot, or of a robot or portion of a robot, which can enable a robot to learn some skills efficiently and safely.”).
Regarding Claim 26, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 19. Zhu further teaches the
method as claimed in claim 19, wherein determining the pose placement information includes determining any of a largest face, a smallest face or other face of the object to be facing up when placed at the destination location (See at least Para [0042] “To summarize FIG. 5A: the paths 540 from the initial pose of the workpiece 510 to each of the stable intermediate poses 520 are evaluated for feasibility; from each of the reachable intermediate poses 520, the paths 550 to the goal pose 530 are evaluated for feasibility; if more than one complete path is feasible, then the feasible complete paths are evaluated for optimality; an optimal path is chosen, and the robot is commanded to move the workpiece 510 from the initial pose to the selected intermediate pose M, re-grip and move the workpiece 510 to the goal pose 530. In the analysis carried out as shown on FIG. 5A, it is possible that no complete path is feasible; this might be the case when a workpiece is located in a corner of the bin, or the workpiece has an irregular design with few robust grasp points. If movement of a workpiece from the initial pose to the goal pose using a single intermediate pose M is not possible, then the search problem is re-formulated including a second stage of intermediate pose…”).
Regarding Claim 27, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 19. Zhu further teaches the
method as claimed in claim 19, wherein the placement pose information includes information relating to re-grasping the object (See at least Para [0042] “To summarize FIG. 5A: the paths 540 from the initial pose of the workpiece 510 to each of the stable intermediate poses 520 are evaluated for feasibility; from each of the reachable intermediate poses 520, the paths 550 to the goal pose 530 are evaluated for feasibility; if more than one complete path is feasible, then the feasible complete paths are evaluated for optimality; an optimal path is chosen, and the robot is commanded to move the workpiece 510 from the initial pose to the selected intermediate pose M, re-grip and move the workpiece 510 to the goal pose 530. In the analysis carried out as shown on FIG. 5A, it is possible that no complete path is feasible; this might be the case when a workpiece is located in a corner of the bin, or the workpiece has an irregular design with few robust grasp points. If movement of a workpiece from the initial pose to the goal pose using a single intermediate pose M is not possible, then the search problem is re-formulated including a second stage of intermediate pose…”).
Regarding Claim 28, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 27. Zhu further teaches the
method as claimed in claim 27, wherein re-grasping the object includes re- grasping the object on a face of the object that is different than an initial face on which the object was initially grasped (See at least Fig 5A and Fig 7 shows that the re-grasping of the object involves re- grasping the object on a face of the object that is different than an initial face on which the object was initially grasped, Para [0042] “To summarize FIG. 5A: the paths 540 from the initial pose of the workpiece 510 to each of the stable intermediate poses 520 are evaluated for feasibility; from each of the reachable intermediate poses 520, the paths 550 to the goal pose 530 are evaluated for feasibility; if more than one complete path is feasible, then the feasible complete paths are evaluated for optimality; an optimal path is chosen, and the robot is commanded to move the workpiece 510 from the initial pose to the selected intermediate pose M, re-grip and move the workpiece 510 to the goal pose 530. In the analysis carried out as shown on FIG. 5A, it is possible that no complete path is feasible; this might be the case when a workpiece is located in a corner of the bin, or the workpiece has an irregular design with few robust grasp points. If movement of a workpiece from the initial pose to the goal pose using a single intermediate pose M is not possible, then the search problem is re-formulated including a second stage of intermediate pose…”).
Regarding Claim 33, Zhu teaches an object processing system for processing objects comprising:
an end-effector of a programmable motion device for grasping an object (See at least Para [0023] “For each workpiece 130 in the bin 140, a new path must be computed by the controller 110 (or by another computer and then provided to the controller 110) which causes the robot 100 to move the gripper 102 from a home or approach position to pick up the workpiece 130 using a suitable grasp point and orientation, and move the workpiece 130 along a path to the goal position and orientation while avoiding obstacles such as the side of the bin 140, then return the gripper 102 to the home or approach position in preparation for the next workpiece 130…”), the programmable motion device including a plurality of joints (See at least Fig 1 shows that the programmable motion device have a plurality of joints, Para [0003] “Systems exist which plan the motion of the robot for the pick and place application described above, while adhering to the physical limits of motion of the robot joints…”); …
and determining placement pose information for placing the object at a destination location in a
destination pose based on the estimated joint positions associated with the estimated pose of the object (See at least Para [0042] “To summarize FIG. 5A: the paths 540 from the initial pose of the workpiece 510 to each of the stable intermediate poses 520 are evaluated for feasibility; from each of the reachable intermediate poses 520, the paths 550 to the goal pose 530 are evaluated for feasibility; if more than one complete path is feasible, then the feasible complete paths are evaluated for optimality; an optimal path is chosen, and the robot is commanded to move the workpiece 510 from the initial pose to the selected intermediate pose M, re-grip and move the workpiece 510 to the goal pose 530. In the analysis carried out as shown on FIG. 5A, it is possible that no complete path is feasible; this might be the case when a workpiece is located in a corner of the bin, or the workpiece has an irregular design with few robust grasp points. If movement of a workpiece from the initial pose to the goal pose using a single intermediate pose M is not possible, then the search problem is re-formulated including a second stage of intermediate pose…”);
Wherein the end-effector places the object at the destination location in the destination pose based on the placement pose information (See at least Para [0042] “To summarize FIG. 5A: the paths 540 from the initial pose of the workpiece 510 to each of the stable intermediate poses 520 are evaluated for feasibility; from each of the reachable intermediate poses 520, the paths 550 to the goal pose 530 are evaluated for feasibility; if more than one complete path is feasible, then the feasible complete paths are evaluated for optimality; an optimal path is chosen, and the robot is commanded to move the workpiece 510 from the initial pose to the selected intermediate pose M, re-grip and move the workpiece 510 to the goal pose 530. In the analysis carried out as shown on FIG. 5A, it is possible that no complete path is feasible; this might be the case when a workpiece is located in a corner of the bin, or the workpiece has an irregular design with few robust grasp points. If movement of a workpiece from the initial pose to the goal pose using a single intermediate pose M is not possible, then the search problem is re-formulated including a second stage of intermediate pose…”).
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out …
a pose-in-hand perception system including one or more perception units that capture perception data for assisting in determining an estimated pose of the object as held by the end-effector over the one or more perception units; and
a control system for determining the estimated pose of the object based on the perception data captured by the one or more perception units as the object is held over the one or more perception units, determining estimated joint positions of a plurality of joints of the programmable motion device associated with the estimated pose of the object, …
Solowjow teaches … as held by the end-effector over the one or more perception units (See at least Para [0036] “… Capturing the second image of the first object can include positioning the first object, by the robot, over a second camera…”, Fig 1); and
… as the object is held over the one or more perception units (See at least Para [0036] “… Capturing the second image of the first object can include positioning the first object, by the robot, over a second camera…”, Fig 1), …
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Solowjow and include the feature of holding the object over one or more perception units by the end-effector to estimate the pose of the object, thereby provide precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object and increase efficiency (See at least Par [0002] “Three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of an object or of an environment can create a digital twin or model of a given environment of a robot, or of a robot or portion of a robot, which can enable a robot to learn some skills efficiently and safely.”).
Rodriguez Garcia teaches …
a pose-in-hand perception system including one or more perception units that capture perception data for assisting in determining an estimated pose of the object as held by the end-effector over the one or more perception units (See at least Col 10 Lines 4-7 “FIG. 7 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of a method 540 of controlling an object state. Controlling an object state may include estimating a pose of an object based on signals received from a tactile sensor, as indicated at 542…”);
a control system for determining the estimated pose of the object based on the perception data captured by the one or more perception units … determining estimated joint positions of a plurality of joints of the programmable motion device associated with the estimated pose of the object (See at least Col 7 Lines 47-51 “In some embodiments, a robotic system may include other sensors in addition to the tactile sensors that may be associated with one or more end effectors. For example, a robotic system may include joint sensors (e.g., encoders), force/torque sensors, cameras, or other sensors.”, Col 10 Lines 4-7 “FIG. 7 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of a method 540 of controlling an object state. Controlling an object state may include estimating a pose of an object based on signals received from a tactile sensor, as indicated at 542…”), …
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia and include the feature of determining an estimated pose of the object as it is being held by the end-effector and also associate the estimated pose with the estimated joint positions to provide placement pose information, thereby provide precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 34, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 33.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the object processing system as
claimed in claim 33, wherein the joint positions are determined when the end-effector is positioned at a pose-in-hand location.
Rodriguez Garcia teaches the object processing system as claimed in claim 33,
wherein the joint positions are determined when the end-effector is positioned at a pose-in-hand location (See at least Col 10 Lines 4-7 “FIG. 7 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of a method 540 of controlling an object state. Controlling an object state may include estimating a pose of an object based on signals received from a tactile sensor, as indicated at 542…”, discloses that pose is estimated based on signal received from a tactile sensor which is construed as the joint positions are determined when the end-effector is positioned at a pose-in-hand location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia and include the feature of the joint positions being determined when the end-effector is positioned at a pose-in-hand location, thereby provide precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 35, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 33.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the object processing system as
claimed in claim 33,
wherein the joint positions are estimated joint positions determined by interpolation.
Rodriguez Garcia teaches the object processing system as claimed in claim 33, wherein the joint positions are estimated joint positions determined by interpolation (See at least Col 4 Lines 24-29 “…For these primitives, the end effector pose trajectory may be determined by directly interpolating between initial and final poses of the object. For the pivot manipulation primitive, an interpolated object trajectory between the initial and final poses may be computed about a specified center of rotation…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia and include the feature of joint positions are being estimated joint positions determined by interpolation, thereby provide precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 36, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 33.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the object processing system as claimed in claim 33,
wherein the estimated pose of the object is determined while the end-effector is moving the object over the pose-in-hand perception system.
Rodriguez Garcia teaches the object processing system as claimed in claim 33,
wherein the estimated pose of the object is performed while the end-effector is moving (See at least Claim 1 “… manipulating the object with the end effector according to the at least one trajectory to move the object to the desired pose; continuing to estimate the pose of the object and the contact state during manipulation of the object as the object is moved to the desired pose; and updating the at least one trajectory based on a change in the estimated pose and/or the contact state relative to the end effector during manipulation of the object as the object is moved to the desired pose …”)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Rodriguez Garcia and include the feature of determining an estimated pose of the object being performed while the end-effector is moving, thereby provide option of estimating object pose during end-effector movement in order for precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object.
Solowjow teaches … while the end-effector is moving the object over the pose-in-hand perception system (See at least Para [0036] “… Capturing the second image of the first object can include positioning the first object, by the robot, over a second camera…”, Fig 1);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Solowjow and include the feature of the end-effector moving the object over the pose-in-hand perception system, thereby provide precise and accurate calculation for placement of the object and increase efficiency (See at least Par [0002] “Three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of an object or of an environment can create a digital twin or model of a given environment of a robot, or of a robot or portion of a robot, which can enable a robot to learn some skills efficiently and safely.”).
Regarding Claim 40, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 33. Zhu further teaches the
object processing system as claimed in claim 33, wherein the control system further determines any of a largest face, a smallest face or other face of the object to be facing up when placed at the destination location (See at least Para [0042] “To summarize FIG. 5A: the paths 540 from the initial pose of the workpiece 510 to each of the stable intermediate poses 520 are evaluated for feasibility; from each of the reachable intermediate poses 520, the paths 550 to the goal pose 530 are evaluated for feasibility; if more than one complete path is feasible, then the feasible complete paths are evaluated for optimality; an optimal path is chosen, and the robot is commanded to move the workpiece 510 from the initial pose to the selected intermediate pose M, re-grip and move the workpiece 510 to the goal pose 530. In the analysis carried out as shown on FIG. 5A, it is possible that no complete path is feasible; this might be the case when a workpiece is located in a corner of the bin, or the workpiece has an irregular design with few robust grasp points. If movement of a workpiece from the initial pose to the goal pose using a single intermediate pose M is not possible, then the search problem is re-formulated including a second stage of intermediate pose…”).
Regarding Claim 41, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 33. Zhu further teaches the
object processing system as claimed in claim 33, wherein the placement pose information includes information relating to re-grasping the object (See at least Para [0042] “To summarize FIG. 5A: the paths 540 from the initial pose of the workpiece 510 to each of the stable intermediate poses 520 are evaluated for feasibility; from each of the reachable intermediate poses 520, the paths 550 to the goal pose 530 are evaluated for feasibility; if more than one complete path is feasible, then the feasible complete paths are evaluated for optimality; an optimal path is chosen, and the robot is commanded to move the workpiece 510 from the initial pose to the selected intermediate pose M, re-grip and move the workpiece 510 to the goal pose 530. In the analysis carried out as shown on FIG. 5A, it is possible that no complete path is feasible; this might be the case when a workpiece is located in a corner of the bin, or the workpiece has an irregular design with few robust grasp points. If movement of a workpiece from the initial pose to the goal pose using a single intermediate pose M is not possible, then the search problem is re-formulated including a second stage of intermediate pose…”).
Regarding Claim 42, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 41. Zhu further
teaches the object processing system as claimed in claim 41, wherein re-grasping the object includes the end-effector re-grasping the object on a face of the object that is different than an initial face on which the object was initially grasped (See at least Fig 5A and Fig 7 shows that the re-grasping of the object involves re- grasping the object on a face of the object that is different than an initial face on which the object was initially grasped, Para [0042] “To summarize FIG. 5A: the paths 540 from the initial pose of the workpiece 510 to each of the stable intermediate poses 520 are evaluated for feasibility; from each of the reachable intermediate poses 520, the paths 550 to the goal pose 530 are evaluated for feasibility; if more than one complete path is feasible, then the feasible complete paths are evaluated for optimality; an optimal path is chosen, and the robot is commanded to move the workpiece 510 from the initial pose to the selected intermediate pose M, re-grip and move the workpiece 510 to the goal pose 530. In the analysis carried out as shown on FIG. 5A, it is possible that no complete path is feasible; this might be the case when a workpiece is located in a corner of the bin, or the workpiece has an irregular design with few robust grasp points. If movement of a workpiece from the initial pose to the goal pose using a single intermediate pose M is not possible, then the search problem is re-formulated including a second stage of intermediate pose…”).
Claim(s) 7, 15, 23, 29, 37, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Zhu et al (US 2021/0308866 A1) (Hereinafter Zhu) in view of Rodriguez Garcia et al. (US 11878415 B2) (Hereinafter Rodriguez Garcia), Solowjow et al. (US 20230330858 A1) (Hereinafter Solowjow), and further in view of Castellanos et al. (US 20040062838 A1) (Hereinafter Castellanos).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 1.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein
determining the pose adjustment includes determining a topple risk factor.
Castellanos teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining the pose adjustment
includes determining a topple risk factor (See at least Para [0053] “… Additionally, since the product is lifted, the center of gravity of the food package is also shifted slightly toward the lid in the vertical display orientation. These functions help to stabilize the food package 10 during the display orientation minimizing the risk that the package 10 will topple over …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Castellanos and include the feature of determining the pose adjustment includes determining a topple risk factor, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 13.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 13,
wherein placing the object on the receiving surface causes the object to be tipped over on the receiving surface into the destination pose.
Castellanos teaches the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein placing the object on the
receiving surface causes the object to be tipped over on the receiving surface into the destination pose (See at least Para [0052] “… Accordingly, the package 10 is designed to be stood-up or tipped on the edge on the front side wall portion 34…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Castellanos and include the feature of placing the object on the receiving surface causing the object to be tipped over on the receiving surface into the destination pose, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 23, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 19.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein
determining the placement pose information includes determining a topple risk factor.
Castellanos teaches the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein determining the placement pose information includes determining a topple risk factor (See at least Para [0053] “… Additionally, since the product is lifted, the center of gravity of the food package is also shifted slightly toward the lid in the vertical display orientation. These functions help to stabilize the food package 10 during the display orientation minimizing the risk that the package 10 will topple over …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Castellanos and include the feature of determining the placement pose information includes determining a topple risk factor, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 29, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 19.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 19,
wherein placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose based on the pose placement information includes placing the object on a receiving surface that causes the object to be tipped over on the receiving surface into the destination pose.
Castellanos teaches the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein placing the object at the
destination location in the destination pose based on the pose placement information includes placing the object on a receiving surface that causes the object to be tipped over on the receiving surface into the destination pose (See at least Para [0052] “… Accordingly, the package 10 is designed to be stood-up or tipped on the edge on the front side wall portion 34…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Castellanos and include the feature of placing the object on the receiving surface involves causing the object to be tipped over on the receiving surface into the destination pose, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 37, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 33.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the object processing system as claimed in claim 33,
wherein the control system further determines a topple risk factor.
Castellanos teaches the object processing system as claimed in claim 33,
wherein the control system further determines a topple risk factor (See at least Para [0053] “… Additionally, since the product is lifted, the center of gravity of the food package is also shifted slightly toward the lid in the vertical display orientation. These functions help to stabilize the food package 10 during the display orientation minimizing the risk that the package 10 will topple over …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Castellanos and include the feature of determining the pose adjustment includes determining a topple risk factor, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 43, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 33.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the object processing system as claimed in claim 33,
wherein the end-effector places the object on a receiving surface that causes the object to be tipped over on the receiving surface into the destination pose.
Castellanos teaches the object processing system as claimed in claim 33, wherein the end-
effector places the object on a receiving surface that causes the object to be tipped over on the receiving surface into the destination pose (See at least Para [0052] “… Accordingly, the package 10 is designed to be stood-up or tipped on the edge on the front side wall portion 34…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Castellanos and include the feature of placing the object on the receiving surface that causes the object to be tipped over on the receiving surface into the destination pose, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Claim 8, 24, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (US
2021/0308866 A1) (Hereinafter Zhu) in view of Rodriguez Garcia et al. (US 11878415 B2) (Hereinafter Rodriguez), Solowjow et al. (US 20230330858 A1) (Hereinafter Solowjow), and further in view of Eto et al. (US 20210291366 A1) (Hereinafter Eto).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 1.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose includes positioning the object with the end-effector such that a center of mass of the object is outside of a contact area at which the object contacts the destination location.
Eto teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose includes positioning the object with the end-effector such that a center of mass of the object is outside of a contact area at which the object contacts the destination location (See at least Para [0105] “FIG. 9A shows a state in which the holding part 200 holds a position near the center of gravity G of the object O. FIGS. 9B and 9C show a state in which the holding part 200 holds a position far from the center of gravity position G, as compared with FIG. 9A.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Eto and include the feature of positioning the object with the end-effector such that a center of mass of the object is outside of a contact area at which the object contacts the destination location, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 24, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 19.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose includes positioning the object with the end-effector such that a center of mass of the object is outside of a contact area at which the object contacts the destination location.
Eto teaches the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose includes positioning the object with the end-effector such that a center of mass of the object is outside of a contact area at which the object contacts the destination location (See at least Para [0105] “FIG. 9A shows a state in which the holding part 200 holds a position near the center of gravity G of the object O. FIGS. 9B and 9C show a state in which the holding part 200 holds a position far from the center of gravity position G, as compared with FIG. 9A.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Eto and include the feature of positioning the object with the end-effector such that a center of mass of the object is outside of a contact area at which the object contacts the destination location, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 38, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 33.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the object processing system as claimed in claim 33, wherein the end-effector positions the object such that a center of mass of the object is outside of a contact area at which the object contacts the destination location.
Eto teaches the object processing system as claimed in claim 33, wherein the end-effector positions the object such that a center of mass of the object is outside of a contact area at which the object contacts the destination location (See at least Para [0105] “FIG. 9A shows a state in which the holding part 200 holds a position near the center of gravity G of the object O. FIGS. 9B and 9C show a state in which the holding part 200 holds a position far from the center of gravity position G, as compared with FIG. 9A.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Eto and include the feature of positioning the object with the end-effector such that a center of mass of the object is outside of a contact area at which the object contacts the destination location, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Claim 9, 25, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (US
2021/0308866 A1) (Hereinafter Zhu) in view of Rodriguez Garcia et al. (US 11878415 B2) (Hereinafter Rodriguez), Solowjow et al. (US 20230330858 A1) (Hereinafter Solowjow), and further in view of Oh et al. (US 20220072682 A1) (Hereinafter Oh).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 1.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose includes moving the end-effector at least about 15 degrees from vertical prior to releasing the object to the destination location.
Oh teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein placing the object at the destination
location in the destination pose includes moving the end-effector at least about 15 degrees from vertical prior to releasing the object to the destination location (See at least Para [0045] “FIG. 2B shows the degree of movement which is used to move the end effector 242 from the vertical or substantially vertical orientation to a horizontal orientation.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings
of Oh and include the feature of moving the end-effector at least about some degrees from vertical prior to releasing the object to the destination location, thereby provide precise placement of the object. It would have been a matter of design choice since the applicant has not disclosed that the moving of the end-effector in particular angle from vertical prior to releasing the object to the destination location solves any state problem or is for any particular purpose. The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 19.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 19,
wherein placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose includes moving the end-effector at least about 15 degrees from vertical prior to releasing the object to the destination location.
Oh teaches the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein placing the object at
the destination location in the destination pose includes moving the end-effector at least about 15 degrees from vertical prior to releasing the object to the destination location (See at least Para [0045] “FIG. 2B shows the degree of movement which is used to move the end effector 242 from the vertical or substantially vertical orientation to a horizontal orientation.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Oh and include the feature of moving the end-effector at least about some degrees from vertical prior to releasing the object to the destination location, thereby provide precise placement of the object. It would have been a matter of design choice since the applicant has not disclosed that the moving of the end-effector in particular angle from vertical prior to releasing the object to the destination location solves any state problem or is for any particular purpose. The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 39, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 33.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the object processing system as claimed in claim 33,
wherein the end-effector positions the object at least about 15 degrees from vertical prior to releasing the object to the destination location.
Oh teaches the object processing system as claimed in claim 33, wherein the end-effector
positions the object at least about 15 degrees from vertical prior to releasing the object to the destination location (See at least Para [0045] “FIG. 2B shows the degree of movement which is used to move the end effector 242 from the vertical or substantially vertical orientation to a horizontal orientation.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Oh and include the feature of moving the end-effector at least about some degrees from vertical prior to releasing the object to the destination location, thereby provide precise placement of the object. It would have been a matter of design choice since the applicant has not disclosed that the moving of the end-effector in particular angle from vertical prior to releasing the object to the destination location solves any state problem or is for any particular purpose. The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 16, 17, 18, 30, 31, 32, 44, 45, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Zhu et al (US 2021/0308866 A1) (Hereinafter Zhu) in view of Rodriguez Garcia et al. (US 11878415 B2) (Hereinafter Rodriguez), Solowjow et al. (US 20230330858 A1) (Hereinafter Solowjow), and further in view of Poteet et al. (US 20220339800 A1) (Hereinafter Poteet).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 1.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the destination location includes a bag, and placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose in accordance with the pose adjustment includes aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of an opening to the bag.
Poteet teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the destination
location includes a bag, and placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose in accordance with the pose adjustment includes aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of an opening to the bag (See at least Para [0035] “…According to various embodiments, the vacuum cup disclosed herein mitigates some of the challenges associated with handling items that are non-rigid or packaged in a polybag (e.g., a loosely filled polybag).”, [0039] “… For example, the depth limiter is configured to adjust a depth of the internal cavity (e.g., the primary internal cavity) based at least in part on a type of packaging (e.g., bag) of an item…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Poteet and include the feature of the pose adjustment involving aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of an opening to the bag, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 1.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the destination location includes a slot, and placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose in accordance with the pose adjustment includes aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of the slot.
Poteet teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the destination location includes a slot, and placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose in accordance with the pose adjustment includes aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of the slot (See at least Para [0066] “Select a slot on the conveyance structure in which to place a selected item based on a size of the selected item and/or one or more characteristics of an item within a slot on the conveyance structure.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Poteet and include the feature of placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose in accordance with the pose adjustment includes aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of the slot, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 1.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the destination location includes a cubbie, and placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose in accordance with the pose adjustment includes aligning opposing sides of the object with side walls of the cubbie.
Poteet teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the destination location includes a cubbie, and placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose in accordance with the pose adjustment includes aligning opposing sides of the object with side walls of the cubbie (See at least Para [0170] “At 435, a plan or strategy to move one or more items in the workspace is determined. In some embodiments, a robotic system determines the plan or strategy to pick at least one item from a shelf (e.g., a shelf of a shelf machine) in the workspace and to place the at least one item in a receptacle such as a box, tray, tote, bag, or other receptacle…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Poteet and include the feature of placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose in accordance with the pose adjustment includes aligning opposing sides of the object with side walls of the cubbie, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 30, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 19.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein the
destination location includes a bag, and placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose based on the pose placement information includes aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of an opening to the bag.
Poteet teaches the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein the destination
location includes a bag, and placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose based on the pose placement information includes aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of an opening to the bag (See at least Para [0035] “…According to various embodiments, the vacuum cup disclosed herein mitigates some of the challenges associated with handling items that are non-rigid or packaged in a polybag (e.g., a loosely filled polybag).”, [0039] “… For example, the depth limiter is configured to adjust a depth of the internal cavity (e.g., the primary internal cavity) based at least in part on a type of packaging (e.g., bag) of an item…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Poteet and include the feature of placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose in accordance with the pose adjustment includes aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of an opening to the bag, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 31, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 19.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein the destination location includes a slot, and placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose based on the pose placement information includes aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of the slot.
Poteet teaches the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein the destination location includes a slot, and placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose based on the pose placement information includes aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of the slot (See at least Para [0066] “Select a slot on the conveyance structure in which to place a selected item based on a size of the selected item and/or one or more characteristics of an item within a slot on the conveyance structure.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Poteet and include the feature of placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose based on the pose placement information includes aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of the slot, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 32, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 19.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein the destination location includes a cubbie, and placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose based on the pose placement information includes aligning opposing sides of the object with side walls of the cubbie.
Poteet teaches the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein the destination location includes a cubbie, and placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose based on the pose placement information includes aligning opposing sides of the object with side walls of the cubbie (See at least Para [0170] “At 435, a plan or strategy to move one or more items in the workspace is determined. In some embodiments, a robotic system determines the plan or strategy to pick at least one item from a shelf (e.g., a shelf of a shelf machine) in the workspace and to place the at least one item in a receptacle such as a box, tray, tote, bag, or other receptacle…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Poteet and include the feature of placing the object at the destination location in the destination pose in accordance with the pose adjustment includes aligning opposing sides of the object with side walls of the cubbie, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 44, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 33.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the object processing system as
claimed in claim 33, wherein the destination location includes a bag, and wherein the end- effector places the object in the bag by aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of an opening to the bag.
Poteet teaches the object processing system as claimed in claim 33, wherein the
destination location includes a bag, and wherein the end- effector places the object in the bag by aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of an opening to the bag (See at least Para [0035] “…According to various embodiments, the vacuum cup disclosed herein mitigates some of the challenges associated with handling items that are non-rigid or packaged in a polybag (e.g., a loosely filled polybag).”, [0039] “… For example, the depth limiter is configured to adjust a depth of the internal cavity (e.g., the primary internal cavity) based at least in part on a type of packaging (e.g., bag) of an item…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Poteet and include the feature of wherein the end- effector places the object in the bag by aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of an opening to the bag, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 45, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 33.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the object processing system as claimed in claim 33, wherein the destination location includes a slot, and wherein the end- effector places the object in the slot by aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of the slot.
Poteet teaches the object processing system as claimed in claim 33, wherein the
destination location includes a slot, and wherein the end- effector places the object in the slot by aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of the slot (See at least Para [0066] “Select a slot on the conveyance structure in which to place a selected item based on a size of the selected item and/or one or more characteristics of an item within a slot on the conveyance structure.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Poteet and include the feature of wherein the end- effector places the object in the slot by aligning opposing sides of the object with inner side walls of the slot, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Regarding Claim 46, modified Zhu teaches all the elements of claim 33.
However, Zhu does not explicitly spell out the object processing system as
claimed in claim 33, wherein the destination location includes a cubbie, and wherein the end- effector places the object in the cubbie by aligning opposing sides of the object with side walls of the cubbie.
Poteet teaches the object processing system as claimed in claim 33, wherein the
destination location includes a cubbie, and wherein the end- effector places the object in the cubbie by aligning opposing sides of the object with side walls of the cubbie (See at least Para [0170] “At 435, a plan or strategy to move one or more items in the workspace is determined. In some embodiments, a robotic system determines the plan or strategy to pick at least one item from a shelf (e.g., a shelf of a shelf machine) in the workspace and to place the at least one item in a receptacle such as a box, tray, tote, bag, or other receptacle…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zhu with the teachings of Poteet and include the feature of wherein the end- effector places the object in the cubbie by aligning opposing sides of the object with side walls of the cubbie, thereby provide precise placement of the object.
Conclusion
62. 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.
63. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to SHAHEDA HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-5310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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.
/SHAHEDA HOQUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658