DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This final office action is in response to the amendments filled on 04/30/2026. Claim 8 is canceled. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9-11, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0286156 (“Murry”), and further in view of US 2021/0086370 (“Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 19 and 20), Murray discloses a robotic system (see at least fig 1), comprising:
a processor configured to (see at least fig 2, where control system, 200 include processor, 234):
receive from a first agent included in a plurality of robotically controlled agents associated with a shared workspace, a first request to be provided a first motion plan to perform a first pick and place task assigned to the first agent (see at least fig 2, where specific tasks, 215 is received. See also [0031], where “FIG. 1 shows a robotic system 100 which includes a plurality of robots 102a, 102b, 102c (collectively 102) that operate in a shared workspace 104 to carry out tasks”; see also [0089], where “The goal is typically a location at which the robot 102, 202 carries out a specified task (e.g., picking and placing an object)”; see also fig 1, motion planner);
receive, from a second agent included in the plurality of robotically controlled agents associated with the shared workspace, a second request to be provided a second motion plan to perform a second pick and place task assigned to the second agent (see at least fig 1, where multiple robots are performing tasks. See also [0035], where “The robotic system 100 may include one or more robot control systems 109a, 109b, 109c, (three shown, collectively 109) which include one or more motion planners, for example a respective motion planner 110a, 110b, 110c (three shown, collectively 110) for each of the robots 102a, 102b, 102c, respectively.”; see also [0089] and [0034]); and
determine the first motion plan for the first agent to perform the first pick and place task assigned to the first agent and the second motion plan for the second agent to perform the second pick and place task assigned to the second agent, including by taking into consideration the second motion plan associated with the second agent included in the plurality of robotically controlled agents to perform the second pick and place task assigned to the second agent (see at least [0033] and [0085]);
wherein the first motion plan involves the first agent performing the first pick and place task at least in part while the second agent is performing the second pick and place task, and the second motion plan associated with the second agent is taken into consideration at least in part by considering a swept volume associated with at least a remaining uncompleted portion of the second motion plan as an obstacle with which the first agent will not collide while implementing the first motion plan (see at least fig 4, fig 5, [0043], [0048] and [0062]).
Murry does not disclose the following limitation:
the processor determines the first motion plan and the second motion plan to maximize the collective utilization and throughput of the robotically controlled agents.
However, Zhang discloses a system wherein the processor determines the first motion plan and the second motion plan to maximize the collective utilization and throughput of the robotically controlled agents (see at least [0019], where “a feature of a preferred embodiment is an automated processing associated with the robot of future planning and scheduling, to coordinate with other resources, constraints, or requirements. Further, where multiple robots are available, the planning may be collaborative to achieve group or task efficiency rather than seeking to maximize individual efficiency.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Murry to incorporate the teachings of Zhang by including the above feature for increasing manufacturing efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Murry further discloses a system wherein the first agent comprises a robotic arm (see at least fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, Murry further discloses a system wherein the first agent comprises a mobile robot (see at least fig 1, where robot is picking and placing object. So, robot is moving).
Regarding claim 7, Murry further discloses a system wherein the processor is configured to instruct the first agent to begin implementing the first motion plan at a time associated with completion by the second agent of at least a first portion of the second motion plan (see at least fig 5, where motion of one robot is determined considering motion of another robot. See also [0008]).
Regarding claim 9, Murry further discloses a system wherein the first motion plan and the second motion plan are determined concurrently, prior to the first motion plan being assigned to the first agent or the second motion plan being assigned to the second agent (see at least [0137], where “at least some portion of motion planning for one robot may overlap or be concurrent with or in parallel with at least some portion of motion planning for one or more other robots.”; see also fig 6).
Regarding claim 10, Murry further discloses a system wherein the processor is configured to select the second agent to begin implementation of the second motion plan prior to the first agent beginning implementation of the first motion plan (see at least fig 1, where multiple robots share spaces and movement is plan to avoid collision. So, second motion start before first motion).
Regarding claim 11, Murry further discloses a system wherein the processor is configured to determine an ordered list of items to be picked and placed in the workspace (see at least [0163], where “The method 700 starts at 702, for example in response to a power ON of a robot and/or robot control system, in response to a call or invocation from a calling routine (e.g., method 500), or in response to receipt of a set or list or queue of tasks.”; see also [0089]).
Regarding claim 16, Murry further discloses a system wherein the first motion plan is determined based at least in part on state information received from a computer vision or other perception system (see at least fig 1, where 124 is perception system).
Regarding claim 17, Murry further discloses a system wherein the request is received from a first robot controller associated with the first agent (see at least fig 2, where motion plan is received from the robot control system).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0286156 (“Murry”), and in view of US 2021/0086370 (“Zhang”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0088301 (“Erdim”).
Regarding claim 4, Murry further discloses a system wherein the swept volume is computed at least in part by representing one or both of the elements comprising the second agent and the payload being picked and placed by the second agent as a simple convex shape (see at least [0048], [0062] and [0075]).
Murry in view of Zhang does not disclose the following limitation:
swept volume is computed…as a simple convex shape.
However, Erdim discloses a system wherein the swept volume is computed as a simple convex shape (see at least [0046] and fig 2A-C).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Murry in view of Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Erdim by including the above feature for increasing safety during robotic movement by providing convex shape swept volumes total space a robot occupies during movement.
Regarding claim 5, Murry further discloses a system wherein the second motion plan comprises a set of end effector positions and orientations and associated joint configurations at each of a plurality of state points comprising the second motion plan (see at least fig 3B, [0019] and [0035]).
Regarding claim 6, Murry further discloses a system wherein the swept volume represents the space that would be occupied by any part of the second agent or the payload as the second agent moves the payload through the workspace according to the second motion plan (see at least [0048], where “The swept volumes 211 represent respective volumes that a robot 202 or portion thereof would occupy when executing a motion or transition that corresponds to a respective edge 216 of the motion planning graph 208.”).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0286156 (“Murry”), and in view of US 2021/0086370 (“Zhang”), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 11,772,833 (“Shi”).
Regarding claim 12, Murry does not disclose claim 12. However, Shi discloses a system wherein the processor is configured to determine based at least in part on the ordered list a placement order in which items will be picked and placed (see at least col 5, lines 60-67, where “The automated custom shipping container system may be configured to determine a sequence of placement 240 representing an order in which the items are to be placed into the custom-sized box. For example, the sequence of placement 240 may indicate that the third object 226 is to be placed into the box first, the first object 222 is to be placed into the box second, and the second object 224 is to be placed into the box last.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Murry in view of Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Shi by including the above feature for increasing manufacturing efficiency by placing the picked object on desired location so that additional steps for placement is avoided.
Regarding claim 13, Murry further discloses a system wherein a number of agents included in the plurality of robotically controlled agents that are capable of picking and placing items in the workspace and selecting an n-tuple of items to be picked and placed first or next (see at least fig 1 and [0089]).
Murry in view of Zhang does not disclose the following limitation:
placement order is determined at least in part by considering a plurality of n-tuples of items.
However, Shi further discloses a system wherein the placement order is determined at least in part by considering a plurality of n-tuples of items (see at least fig 2, where different types of items are picked and placed by robot based on the order list). Same motivation of claim 12 applies.
Regarding claim 14, Shi further discloses a system wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the items comprising the selected n-tuple are candidates to be picked and placed synchronously (see at least col 3, lines 1-5, where “Certain embodiments include systems with robotic arms that can be used to retrieve or otherwise grasp objects and to place the objects into a custom-sized box that may be generated at least partially synchronously by a box making machine or other custom container generation system.”). Same motivation of claim 12 applies.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0286156 (“Murry”), and in view of US 2021/0086370 (“Zhang”), as applied to claim 13 above, and in view of US 11,772,833 (“Shi”), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US 2023/0182315 (“Merkle”).
Regarding claim 15, Murry in view of Zhang and Shi does not disclose claim 15. However, Merkle discloses a system wherein the processor is configured to determine the items comprising the selected n-tuple are not candidates to be picked and placed synchronously based at least in part on a determination that the respective pick locations and/or placement locations of any two or more items comprising the n-tuple overlap (see at least [0145] and [0168]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Murry in view of Zhang and Shi to incorporate the teachings of Merkle by including the above feature for avoiding product damage and avoidance of splitting product throughout the factory floor by no picking overlapped object.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0286156 (“Murry”), and in view of US 2021/0086370 (“Zhang”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 11,931,122 (“Nowlin”).
Regarding claim 18, Murry further discloses a system wherein the processor is configured to monitor and control synchronized execution of the first motion plan (see at least [0044], where “The system can monitor the other robots and cause the robot to move toward a goal in response to a suitable path becoming unblocked or cleared or otherwise found, even before the given robot achieves the staging pose.”).
Murry in view of Zhang does not disclose the following limitation:
the first robot controller operates a control loop at a rate of approximately 1000 Hz and…the second motion plan at a rate of approximately 500 Hz.
However, Nowlin discloses a system the first robot controller operates a control loop at a rate of approximately 1000 Hz and…the second motion plan at a rate of approximately 500 Hz (see at least claim 8, where “the movement controller is configurable to scale a rate of movement of the first robotic surgical instrument to a second rate of movement, different from the first rate of movement”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Murry in view of Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Nowlin by including the above feature for avoiding collision by setting different motion rate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-7 and 9-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination used in the current rejection that is due to the newly added claim amendments.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 5712703976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights