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 .
Claims 1-33 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-16, 19-23 and 25-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cole et al. USP 11, 014,240 (hereinafter “Cole”).
As to claim 1, Cole teaches a system for processing objects using a programmable motion device (FIG. 1-2), said system comprising: an end-effector of the programmable motion device for grasping an object from an in- feed container (FIG. 1, 54 col. 1 lines 51-54 “With reference to FIG. 1, a schematic of a robot 50 is shown which includes a number of moveable robot components 52 along with an effector 54 useful to manipulate and/or sense a target 56” and col 9 lines 31-35 “the dynamic safe zones may be adjusted based not only on an object that the robot is maneuvering near, but also can be adjusted based on the desired target of the robot (e.g. a target in which the robot is intended to grasp)”; and a control system for determining a payload guard for the selected object (col. 3 lines 21-25 “controller 55 can include a number of features structured to provide a dynamic safe zone which can be monitored to alter behavior of the robot 50 if people or property intrude upon the safe zone”), said payload guard comprising point cloud data regarding volumetric data (col. 3 lines 10-17 “"The operating logic 70 can include the algorithms and steps of the controller, whether the controller includes the entire suite of algorithms necessary to effect movement and actions of the robot 54, or whether the controller includes just those necessary to receive data from the camera 58, determine a point cloud, utilize object recognition (discussed further below), and resolve position of the objects relative to a frame of reference keyed to the robot 54")” that include a volume occupied by the selected object (col. 3 In. 66-col. 4 "One nonlimiting form of a dynamic safe zone 78 is shown in FIG. 4. The safe zone 78 is depicted in two dimensions in the illustration across a cross section of the robot component 52, but it will be appreciated that such a zone 78 can be volumetrically extended around the component 52 as needed. The dynamic safe zone 78 is composed of three different areas, a stop zone 82, a slow zone 84, and a normal monitored zone 86."), said payload guard being determined responsive to at least one characteristic of the selected object and is provided specific to the selected object (col. 5 lines 34-51 "defining a dynamic safe zone based upon a motion profile. Such dynamic safe zone can apply to the entire motion profile, and in some forms include zones having different sizes depending on the location within the motion profile. The motion profile can be defined by a start time and end time in some embodiments, it can be defined over discrete time intervals of the motion profile, and/or can be defined over time periods in which a specific robot motion dominates the robot activity (for example, [...] target load onboarding/ discharging in which any of these can occur either separately and/or concurrently). The dynamic safe zones can thus be a function of the motion profile where the profile may result in different "safe fronts" and/or volumetric zones depending on the location within the motion profile (collectively referred to as an envelope)").
As to claim 4, Cole teaches wherein the system is able to detect deflection data representative of deflection of a vacuum cup attached to the end-effector and holding the selected object, and wherein the payload guard is provided responsive to the detected deflection data (col. 6 lines 35-53).
As to claim 5, Cole teaches wherein the end-effector includes a vacuum cup of a diameter d, and wherein the payload guard is reduced in at least one dimension by a distance on the order of the diameter d (col. 6 lines 30-55).
As to claim 6, Cole teaches wherein the payload guard is provided based on perception data of the object when the selected object is lifted from the in-feed container (col. 5 lines 34-51).
As to claim 7, Cole teaches wherein the payload guard is provided based on perception data of the selected object when the selected object is being held at a defined location (col. 5 lines 10-55).
As to claim 8, Cole teaches wherein the payload guard is provided based on perception data of the selected object when the selected object is moved through a defined location (col. 5 line 34- col. 6 line 10).
As to claim 11, Cole teaches wherein the system is able to detect swing data representative of swing of the selected object, and wherein the payload guard is provided responsive to the detected swing data (col. 6 lines 20-65).
As to claim 12, Cole teaches wherein the payload guard is provided in a generally teardrop shape responsive to perception data indicating that the selected object includes a non- rigid bag (col. 6 lines 34-55).
As to claim 13, Cole teaches wherein the payload guard incorporates placement restrictions regarding the location in which the selected object is to be placed by the programmable motion device (col. 3 lines 35-65).
As to claim 14, Cole teaches wherein the placement restrictions include any of a horizontal or vertical defined opening (col. 3 lines 20-65).
As to claim 15, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 16, The method of claim 15, wherein the payload guard for the object is determined when the grasped object is being held by the end-effector.
As to claim 19, is related to claim 4 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 20, is related to claim 5 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 21, is related to claim 6 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 22, is related to claim 7 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 23, is related to claim 8 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 25, is related to claim 11 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 26, is related to claim 12 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 27, is related to claim 13 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 28, is related to claim 14 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 29, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 30, is related to claim 6 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 31, is related to claim 7 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 32, is related to claim 8 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 33, Cole teaches wherein the perception data includes detected swing data regarding movement of the object when the end-effector is not moving (col. 6 In. 35-53).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al. USP 11, 014,240 (hereinafter “Cole”) in view of KESTI WO2004052596A1 (hereinafter “KESTI”).
As to claim 2, Cole teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Cole does not explicitly teach wherein the payload guard is provided as an axis- aligned bounding box.
However, KESTI teaches wherein the payload guard is provided as an axis- aligned bounding box (page 2 lines 15-20 “blob parameters refers, for example, to the area, circumference, maximum length, minimum length, and compactness (area per circumference) of a defined area” and FIG. 5).
Cole and KESTI are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to processing objects using a programmable motion device.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above processing objects using a programmable motion device, as taught by Cole, and incorporating an axis- aligned bounding box, as taught by KESTI.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to preventing collisions between a robot and known surroundings in a virtual world, as suggested by KESTI (page 1 line 15-20).
As to claim 3, Cole teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Cole does not explicitly teach wherein the payload guard is provided as an axis- aligned bounding cylinder.
However, KESTI teaches wherein the payload guard is provided as an axis- aligned bounding cylinder (page 2 lines 10-25 and FIG. 5 “blob parameters refers,
for example, to the area, circumference, maximum length, minimum length, and compactness (area per circumference) of a defined area”).
As to claim 17, is related to claim 2 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 18, is related to claim 3 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al. USP 11, 014,240 (hereinafter “Cole”) in view of Cella 20220197306 A1 (hereinafter “Cella”).
As to claim 9, Cole teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Cole does not explicitly teach wherein the payload guard for the selected object is determined at least in part, on a location within the in-feed container occupied by the selected object prior to grasping.
However, Cella teaches wherein the payload guard for the selected object is determined at least in part, on a location within the in-feed container occupied by the selected object prior to grasping (paragraph 1590-1624).
Cole and Cella are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to processing objects using a programmable motion device.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above processing objects using a programmable motion device, as taught by Cole, and incorporating location within the in-feed container, as taught by Cella.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to automatically configure, organize, deploy, and control robots and robot fleets to securely deliver reliable services, including contracted services that access robotic fleet capabilities in “robotics-as-a-service” platforms, among others, as suggested by Cella (paragraph 0013).
As the claims 10 and 24, Cole and Cella teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Cella further teaches wherein the location within the in-feed container occupied by the selected object prior to grasping is a location adjacent a wall of the in-feed container (2340-2357).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Totten et al USPGPUB 2014/0282783 a dynamic range and comprising an optical receiver having a second attenuator to attenuate the upstream signal(s) and an optical transmitter having a third attenuator to attenuate the upstream signal(s); a coaxial RF link comprising one or more RF amplifiers having a fourth attenuator to attenuate the upstream signal(s); and one or more subscriber modems to generate the upstream signal(s) at respective transmit RF signal levels. The CMTS implements a long loop ALC to set the transmit RF signal level(s) based on received RF signal levels of the upstream signal(s) at the CMTS. Respective values for the first, second, third and fourth attenuators are selected based on the dynamic range of the optical link so as to facilitate implementation of the long loop ALC and effective transmission of upstream information carried by the upstream signal(s).
ROMANO et al. USPGPUB 20190217471 A1 teaches a programmable motion system is disclosed that includes a dynamic end effector system. The dynamic end effector system includes a plurality of acquisition units that are provided at an exchange station within an area accessible by the programmable motion device, and a coupling system for coupling any of the plurality of acquisition units to an end effector of the programmable motion device such that any of the acquisition units may be automatically selected from the exchange station and used by the programmable motion device without requiring any activation or actuation by the exchange station and without requiring any intervention by a human.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119