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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, “such that the transfer unit cell is stabilized to support the transfer unit cell”. It does not make sense for a structure to support itself. Assuming that no additional structure is intended, a simple redaction yielding “such that the transfer unit cell is stabilized” may be preferable. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-11, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts, Brian Thomas, US 2012/0213625 (hereinafter Roberts) in view of Arruda, Paolo, WO 2022049528 (hereinafter Arruda). (Note: for convenience we cite the text of US 2023/0311348, a national stage child application of Arruda).
Regarding claim 1,
Roberts discloses:
A robotic system (the structures of fig. 1),
comprising: a control system; (control cabinet 64: fig. 1)
a transfer unit cell (palletizer cell 10: fig. 1) for the transfer of objects, We interpret a “transfer unit cell” as an enclosed modular or discrete transfer unit. A transfer unit by plain English meaning is any device capable of transferring articles, for example a robotic arm, a conveyor belt, or a combination of such devices.
the transfer unit cell being in communication with the control system (claim 17)
the transfer unit cell further including: a cell base plate (base plates 12, 14: fig. 1);
a robotic arm mount (mount for robot module 18: fig. 1) positioned on the cell base plate for attachment of a robotic arm (robot module 18: fig. 1);
a sensor mount (structure supporting light curtain 60: fig. 1) attached to the cell base plate (12A: fig. 1) for a sensor system (light curtain 60: fig. 1) including a sensor array;Roberts discloses a light curtain 60 in [0045]. Light curtains are sensors configured in arrays.
a conveyor system (conveyors 70: fig. 1) positioned on the cell base plate and adjacent the robotic arm mount for receiving a target object
However, Roberts does not disclose:
and translatable between a deployed configuration configured to receive a pallet within the transfer unit cell, and a retracted configuration wherein the transfer unit cell is retracted into itself,
and a unit enclosure mounted to the cell base plate of the transfer unit cell to facilitate transport of the transfer unit cell, and translation of the transfer unit cell between the deployed configuration and the retracted configuration.Regarding these two limitations, Roberts’ robot cell cannot retract or deploy to different configurations.
Arruda, an invention in the field of portable robot units, teaches:
and translatable between a deployed configuration configured to receive a pallet within the transfer unit cell, and a retracted configuration wherein the transfer unit cell is retracted into itself,
and a unit enclosure (various panels and struts of structure 4: figs. 1-2) mounted to the cell base plate (base 40: figs. 1-2) of the transfer unit cell to facilitate transport of the transfer unit cell, and translation of the transfer unit cell between the deployed configuration and the retracted configuration.Arruda teaches these two configurations in figs. 1 and 2, retracted and deployed respectively. Plainly, Arruda’s enclosure is designed to facilitate transport (see also fig. 8) and translation between its two configurations. Arruda is consistent with Roberts and the instant application in incorporating sensors, conveyors, and a robot arm into its system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the transfer unit cell of Roberts to be translatable between a deployed configuration configured to receive a pallet within the transfer unit cell, and a retracted configuration wherein the transfer unit cell is retracted into itself, and with a and a unit enclosure mounted to the cell base plate of the transfer unit cell to facilitate transport of the transfer unit cell, and translation of the transfer unit cell between the deployed configuration and the retracted configuration, as taught by Arruda because Arruda’s retractable configuration plainly makes transport and redeployment of a robotic cell such as Roberts’ far more rapid and convenient.
Regarding claim 2,
Roberts in view of Arruda teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
The robotic system of claim 1 wherein the retracted configuration of the transfer unit cell includes the conveyor system, the cell base plate, and the sensor mount being retracted into the transfer unit cell.As seen in Arruda’s fig. 1, its retracted configuration cell enclosure includes all substructures of its system including base plate, conveyor, and sensors. In combination with Roberts, Roberts’ corresponding structures would also be retracted.
Regarding claim 3,
Roberts in view of Arruda teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the cell base plate includes base extensions (Roberts, arms 46A,C of build module 50: fig. 5) extending from an edge of the cell base plate and forming a container placement area between the base extensions, the base extensions formed to provide stability and/or balance to support the transfer unit cell while in the deployed configuration. Roberts teaches in [0041] a structure with extending arms intended to receive a pallet as part of a placement area. As this structure is designed to receive a pallet to be operated on, it provides stability and/or balance.
Regarding claim 6,
Roberts in view of Arruda teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the cell base plate includes anchorless support features including one or more friction increasing components (Roberts, unnumbered supports for base plates 12, 14: fig. 1) extending from a bottom surface of the cell base plate. Applicant’s “anchorless support features” are disclosed in its [00100] to be exemplified by feet for the transfer unit enclosure. Roberts teaches several unnumbered supports for various of its platform bases 12 and 14. Since these features are smaller in size than the bases themselves (examine for example 14B in fig. 1, which has three such supports that together are smaller in area than 14B’s underside), they have the effect of increasing friction. Roberts teaches the contact of the platform bases with the factory floor in [0033].
Regarding claim 7,
Roberts in view of Arruda teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the robotic arm (Roberts, robot 20: fig. 2) further includes a distal end with an end effector apparatus (Roberts, pickup gripper: fig. 2) disposed thereon, the end effector apparatus configured for interacting with the target object. Of course, all robotic arms intended as manipulators or grippers comprise end-effectors.
Regarding claim 9,
Roberts in view of Arruda teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the unit enclosure further includes: a frame (Roberts, rectangular enclosure: fig. 1) surrounding the transfer unit cell, the frame including vertical posts (Roberts, upright supports 42: fig. 1) extending substantially perpendicularly from the cell base plate, and a fence (Roberts, safety fences 72-80: fig. 1) attached to and between each of the vertical posts, such that the fence includes separable portions moveable to expose or cover portions of the transfer unit cell. Roberts discloses a variety of fence sections in its fig. 1 and in [0044]-[0053] which can be seen to be attached to vertical posts tapped per [0044] to support the fences. The fences may be attached per [0044] and claim 16 and therefore are separable. Roberts also notes per [0045] that some sections must be left unfenced in order to give access to the cell interior.
Regarding claim 10,
Roberts discloses:
A transfer unit cell (palletizer cell 10: fig. 1) for deployment of a robotic system,
the transfer unit cell comprising: a cell base plate (base plates 12, 14: fig. 1) for the transfer of objects,
a robotic arm mount (mount for robot module 18: fig. 1) positioned on the cell base plate for attachment of a robotic arm (robot module 18: fig. 1);
a conveyor system (conveyors 70: fig. 1) positioned on the cell base plate and adjacent the robotic arm mount for receiving a target object;
a sensor mount (structure supporting light curtain 60: fig. 1) attached to the cell base plate (12A: fig. 1) for receiving a sensor system (light curtain 60: fig. 1) including a sensor array;Roberts discloses a light curtain 60 in [0045]. Light curtains are sensors configured in arrays.
However, Roberts does not disclose:
the transfer unit cell being translatable between a deployed configuration configured to receive and secure a pallet, and a retracted configuration wherein the transfer unit cell is retracted into itself;
and a unit enclosure mounted to the cell base plate to facilitate transport of the transfer unit cell, and translation of the transfer unit cell between the deployed configuration and the retracted configuration.Regarding these two limitations, Roberts’ robot cell cannot retract or deploy to different configurations.
Arruda, an invention in the field of robot cells, teaches:
the transfer unit cell being translatable between a deployed configuration configured to receive and secure a pallet, and a retracted configuration wherein the transfer unit cell is retracted into itself;
and a unit enclosure (various panels and struts of structure 4: figs. 1-2) mounted to the cell base plate (base 40: figs. 1-2) to facilitate transport of the transfer unit cell, and translation of the transfer unit cell between the deployed configuration and the retracted configuration.Arruda teaches these two configurations in figs. 1 and 2, retracted and deployed respectively. Plainly Arruda’s enclosure is designed to facilitate transport (see also fig. 8) and translation between its two configurations. Arruda is consistent with Roberts and the instant application in incorporating sensors, conveyors, and a robot arm into its system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the transfer unit cell of Roberts to be translatable between a deployed configuration configured to receive a pallet within the transfer unit cell, and a retracted configuration wherein the transfer unit cell is retracted into itself, and with a and a unit enclosure mounted to the cell base plate of the transfer unit cell to facilitate transport of the transfer unit cell, and translation of the transfer unit cell between the deployed configuration and the retracted configuration, as taught by Arruda, because Arruda’s retractable configuration plainly makes transport and redeployment of a robotic cell such as Roberts’ far more rapid and convenient.
Regarding claim 11,
Roberts in view of Arruda teaches the limitations of claim 10 and also:
wherein the cell base plate further includes base extensions Roberts, arms 46A,C of build module 50: fig. 5) extending from an edge of the cell base plate and forming a container placement area between the base extensions, the base extensions configured to provide stability and/or balance to support the transfer unit cell during operation and motion of the robotic arm while in the deployed configuration.Roberts teaches in [0041] a structure with extending arms intended to receive a pallet as part of a placement area. As this structure is designed to receive a pallet to be operated on, it provides stability and/or balance.
Regarding claim 14,
Roberts in view of Arruda teaches the limitations of claim 10 and also:
wherein the cell base plate further provides anchorless support features including one or more friction-increasing components (Roberts, unnumbered supports for base plates 12, 14: fig. 1) extending from a bottom surface of the cell base plate. Applicant’s “anchorless support features” are disclosed in its [00100] to be exemplified by feet for the transfer unit enclosure. Roberts teaches several unnumbered supports for various of its platform bases 12 and 14. Since these features are smaller in size than the bases themselves (examine for example 14B in fig. 1, which has three such supports that together are smaller in area than 14B’s underside), they have the effect of increasing friction. Roberts teaches the contact of the platform bases with the factory floor in [0033].
Regarding claim 16,
Roberts in view of Arruda teaches the limitations of claim 10 and also:
wherein the sensor array includes any combination of two-dimensional cameras, three-dimensional cameras, scanners, and/or lighting arrays. Roberts teaches a light curtain 60 as a sensor array in fig. 1. A light curtain comprises a lighting array.
Regarding claim 17,
Roberts in view of Arruda teaches the limitations of claim 10 and also:
wherein the unit enclosure includes a frame (Roberts, rectangular enclosure: fig. 1) surrounding the transfer unit cell, the frame including vertical posts (Roberts, upright supports 42: fig. 1) extending perpendicularly from the cell base plate, and the unit enclosure further includes a fence (Roberts, safety fences 72-80: fig. 1) attached to and between each of the vertical posts attached to and between each of the vertical posts, such that the fence includes separable portions moveable to expose or cover portions of the transfer unit cell. Roberts discloses a variety of fence sections in its fig. 1 and in [0044]-[0053] which can be seen to be attached to vertical posts tapped per [0044] to support the fences. The fences may be attached per [0044] and claim 16 and therefore are separable. Roberts also notes per [0045] that some sections must be left unfenced in order to give access to the cell interior.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arruda in view of Roberts and further in view of Miura Isamu, JP H10291657 (hereinafter Miura).
Regarding claim 4,
Roberts in view of Arruda teaches the limitations of claim 3 but not:
wherein the base extensions are detachable from the edge of the cell base plate to reduce a footprint of the transfer unit cell while in the retracted configuration. Roberts’ base extensions are not detachable.
wherein the base extensions are detachable from the edge of the cell base plate to reduce a footprint of the transfer unit cell while in the retracted configuration. Miura teaches support arms 18 for holding pallets similar to the extensions of Roberts. Per Miura’s abstract, its support arms 18 are detachable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Roberts and Arruda, wherein the base extensions are detachable from the edge of the cell base plate to reduce a footprint of the transfer unit cell while in the retracted configuration, as taught by Miura, because reducing the footprint of a transfer cell unit improves its portability, and applicant, Roberts, and Arruda all share portability of their robot cell as an explicit goal.
Regarding claim 12,
Roberts in view of Arruda teaches the limitations of claim 11 but not:
wherein the base extensions are detachable from the edge of the cell base plate to reduce a footprint of the transfer unit cell while in the retracted configuration. Roberts’ base extensions are not detachable.
wherein the base extensions are detachable from the edge of the cell base plate to reduce a footprint of the transfer unit cell while in the retracted configuration. Miura teaches support arms 18 for holding pallets similar to the extensions of Roberts. Per Miura’s abstract, its support arms 18 are detachable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Roberts and Arruda, wherein the base extensions are detachable from the edge of the cell base plate to reduce a footprint of the transfer unit cell while in the retracted configuration, as taught by Miura, because reducing the footprint of a transfer cell unit improves its portability, and applicant, Roberts, and Arruda all share portability of their robot cell as an explicit goal.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arruda in view of Roberts and further in view of Priebe, et al., US 2015/0073588 (hereinafter Priebe).
Regarding claim 8,
Roberts in view of Arruda teaches the limitations of claim 1 but not:
wherein the conveyor system is mounted to the cell base plate and is extendable beyond an edge of the cell base plate, the conveyor system further including a dynamic platform for movement of the target object received from the robotic arm. While Roberts’s conveyors are not extensible, they can however be considered to feature a dynamic (movable) platform accessible to its robotic arm, this platform being the conveyor surface itself.
Priebe, an invention in the field of automatic palletization, teaches:
wherein the conveyor system is mounted to the cell base plate and is extendable beyond an edge of the cell base plate, the conveyor system further including a dynamic platform for movement of the target object received from the robotic arm.Priebe teaches in [0037] the extension of conveyor 1014 so as to convey a pallet to buffer cell (dynamic platform) 1010. In combination with Roberts and Arruda, Priebe’s conveyor would extend to access a pallet or container outside the cell that would as a result of the extension and operation of the conveyor become accessible by a robot arm such as Roberts’ or Arruda’s.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Arruda and Roberts, wherein the conveyor system is mounted to the cell base plate and is extendable beyond an edge of the cell base plate, the conveyor system further including a dynamic platform for movement of the target object received from the robotic arm, as taught by Priebe, because an extensible conveyor may reach beyond the grasping radius of a robotic arm and thus convey a target pallet or container within reach of the robotic arm.
Regarding claim 15,
Roberts in view of Arruda teaches the limitations of claim 10 but not:
wherein the conveyor system is mounted to the cell base plate and is extendable beyond an edge of the cell base plate, the conveyor system further including a dynamic platform for movement of the target object received from the robotic arm.While Roberts’s conveyors are not extensible, they can however be considered to feature a dynamic (movable) platform accessible to its robotic arm, this platform being the conveyor surface itself.
Priebe, an invention in the field of automatic palletization, teaches:
wherein the conveyor system is mounted to the cell base plate and is extendable beyond an edge of the cell base plate, the conveyor system further including a dynamic platform for movement of the target object received from the robotic arm.Priebe teaches in [0037] the extension of conveyor 1014 so as to convey a pallet to buffer cell (dynamic platform) 1010. In combination with Roberts and Arruda, Priebe’s conveyor would extend to access a pallet or container outside the cell that would as a result of the extension and operation of the conveyor become accessible by a robot arm such as Roberts’ or Arruda’s.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Roberts and Arruda, wherein the conveyor system is mounted to the cell base plate and is extendable beyond an edge of the cell base plate, the conveyor system further including a dynamic platform for movement of the target object received from the robotic arm, as taught by Priebe, because an extensible conveyor may reach beyond the grasping radius of a robotic arm and thus convey a target pallet or container within reach of the robotic arm.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts in view of Arruda and further in view of Morency, et al. US 2015/0203304 (hereinafter Morency).
Regarding claim 18,
Roberts discloses:
A method for rapid deployment and integration of a robotic system (the structures of fig. 1),Roberts discloses this general method in [0002]-[0008].
sensing the plurality of objects contained on the pallet via a sensor system including a sensor array attached to a sensor mount of the transfer unit cell;Roberts discloses an array of product-sensing photoeyes in [0048].
However, Roberts does not disclose:
comprising: deploying a transfer unit cell having a cell base plate into a deployed configuration configured to receive and secure a pallet, containing a plurality of objects;
securing the transfer unit cell in the deployed configuration such that the transfer unit cell is stabilized to support the transfer unit cell;Regarding the two above limitations, Roberts’ robot cell cannot retract or deploy to different configurations.
controlling a robotic arm of the transfer unit cell to interact with a target object sensed from among the plurality of objects contained on the pallet;
and transferring the target object from the pallet to a conveyor system of the transfer unit cell. Regarding the two above limitations, Roberts discloses in [0046]-[0048] the process of palletizing products supplied by a conveyor. Applicant here claims the reverse process of depalletizing products from a pallet and distributing them by conveyor. Roberts is fully capable of performing this process, since the same devices are frequently used by practitioners of the art for both functions, but Roberts does not explicitly disclose the process itself.
Arruda, an invention in the field of robot cells, teaches:
comprising: deploying a transfer unit cell (structure 4: figs. 1-2) having a cell base plate (base 40: figs. 1-2) into a deployed configuration configured to receive and secure a pallet, containing a plurality of objects;
securing the transfer unit cell in the deployed configuration such that the transfer unit cell is stabilized to support the transfer unit cell;Arruda teaches these two configurations in figs. 1 and 2, retracted and deployed respectively. Plainly Arruda’s enclosure is designed to facilitate transport (see also fig. 8) and translation between its two configurations. Arruda is consistent with Roberts and the instant application in incorporating sensors, conveyors, and a robot arm into its system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of Roberts comprising: deploying a transfer unit cell having a cell base plate into a deployed configuration configured to receive and secure a pallet, containing a plurality of objects; and securing the transfer unit cell in the deployed configuration such that the transfer unit cell is stabilized to support the transfer unit cell, as taught by Arruda, because Arruda’s retractable configuration plainly makes transport and redeployment of a robotic cell such as Roberts’ far more rapid and convenient and because a deployment configuration for mechanical systems such as robot arms and conveyors requires stabilization to prevent disarrangement of and damage to the systems.
Morency, an invention in the field of robotic depalletizers, teaches:
controlling a robotic arm of the transfer unit cell to interact with a target object sensed from among the plurality of objects contained on the pallet;
and transferring the target object from the pallet to a conveyor system of the transfer unit cell.Morency teaches both these steps in [0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of Roberts for controlling a robotic arm of the transfer unit cell to interact with a target object sensed from among the plurality of objects contained on the pallet and transferring the target object from the pallet to a conveyor system of the transfer unit cell, as taught by Morency, because warehouse and fulfillment center operations frequently require both palletizing and depalletizing tasks for the purpose of inventory stocking and order fulfillment and because the method of the applicant and Morency is widespread, commonplace, and of long standing in the warehousing arts.
Regarding claim 19,
Roberts in view of Arruda and Morency discloses the limitations of claim 18, and also:
loading the transfer unit cell having a cell base plate onto a transport vehicle in a transport configuration; and deploying the transfer unit cell into the deployed configuration.Arruda teaches the transition of a transfer unit cell from retracted to deployed positions and back in figs. 1-2, and teaches the transport of the transfer unit cell by a vehicle in fig. 8.
Regarding claim 20,
Roberts in view of Arruda and Morency discloses the limitations of claim 18, and also:
retracting the transfer unit cell into a retracted configuration wherein the transfer unit cell is retracted into itself; translating the transfer unit cell from the retracted configuration into a transport configuration; and moving the transfer unit cell via a transport vehicle.Arruda teaches the transition of a transfer unit cell from retracted to deployed positions and back in figs. 1-2, and teaches the transport of the transfer unit cell by a vehicle in fig. 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 5 and 13, while myriad support structures for pallets are known to the art that feature hinged, swiveling, or pivotable supports, such supports are not structurally compatible with reference Miura which teaches the detachable supports of parent claims 4 and 12. We deemed the further combination of Roberts, Arruda and Miura with yet another teaching reference for hinged supports to present the appearance of design by hindsight. Such a combination could not be alleged to demonstrate the obviousness of the overall invention under 35 U.S.C. 103, the invention including all the features of the parent claims as well as claims 5 or 13. Thus the matter of claims 5 and 13 in the context of the structures disclosed in the parent claims was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2022013337 (US 2023/0311347) teaches an enclosed cell with a robotic arm. US 2017/0361472 teaches a robotic cell with a robot arm that can be folded into itself for transport. US 2016/0252893 teaches a robot cell that can be transported by a vehicle. Any or all of these references could have been cited in rejection in the instant office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights