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 .
Amendments to the claims have been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues are fully addressed with the new rejections made to the newly provided amendments.
Appellant’s arguments are addressed with ether the removal of rejections i.e. 101, amendments to the rejections i.e. DP, and art rejections and comments made to the amendments that the arguments are based on. Additionally, the 112 rejections have been withdrawn based on claim amendments.
DETAILED ACTION
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The claim of this instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of co-pending Application. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Double Patenting Rejections will not be revisited and be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is to be found.
Instant Application claims 1-20 are rejected based on the claims form:
US 20170036354 (issued as Patent No. 9,808,936)
reorient
20200055152 (issued as Patent No. 11,396,072)
stable displacement para 59 reposition and or reorient object relative to the gripper.
20200055197 (issued as Patent No. 11,247,345)
Claim 22 reorient
Additionally, a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection is made on the following application because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
US 20240181656
US 20250196333
A patentee or applicant may disclaim or dedicated to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term of a patent. 35 U.S.C. 253. The statue does not provide for a terminal disclaimer of only a specified claim or claims. The terminal disclaimer must operate with respect to all claims in the patent. MPEP 804.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su US 20210122039.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
associating a first grasp region of an object with an end effector of a robotic device, wherein the first grasp region corresponds to a portion of the object that is graspable by the end effector and includes a set of potential grasps achievable by the end effector of the robotic device for grasping the portion of the object; (Fig. 6 and para 50; Controller 106 selects corresponding potentially [graspable] graspable features for items; Controller 106 selects corresponding potentially graspable features for items 112, 114, 116 that correspond to the geometry information determined from the visual data received from cameras 115, 117. controller 106 may compare the determined geometry information with a library of known features and select a feature for the item [set of potential grasps achievable] based on the comparison. In some embodiments, the features are canonical shapes. Controller 106 may superimpose the canonical shapes [potential set of grasps] on the items to be grasped.)
determining, within the first grasp region, a target grasp from among the set of potential grasps, wherein the grasp is determined based, at least in part, on information associated with a capability of the robotic device to perform the target grasp; 50; Controller 106 determines geometry information [grasp region of the object] based on visual data (e.g., point cloud data [from para 49, potential graspable areas]) received from cameras 115, 117. Controller 106 selects corresponding potentially graspable features [target grasp] for items 112, 114, 116 that correspond to the geometry information determined from the visual data received from cameras 115, 117.
wherein the target grasp is further determined based, at least in part, on one or both of a pose of the robotic device 44-45; the robotic system 101 to have an awareness of its environment 100 and its position relative to the items on table 110 (or, in some embodiments, a set of coordinates or other locations associate with the table 110; configured to use awareness of its current position and the environment 100 to position end effector 108 at a location above table 110. identify and select an item to pick up next, and a strategy to pick up the item may be selected autonomously, e.g., based on one or more of the item's location, shape, orientation, aspect presented, texture, rigidity, etc. 49; preferred grasp strategy;
or
a manipulation goal of the robotic device #406 move the selected item; and
controlling the robotic device to grasp the object using the target grasp. Fig.4 #404
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the end effector of the robotic device includes a gripper having a set of appendages, and Fig.1 #108
the first grasp region has a shape capable of being grasped by at least two appendages of the set of appendages. Fig.1 #112
3. The method of claim 2, the shape capable of being grasped by at least two appendages of the set of appendages includes a cylinder, a prism or a disk Fig.1 #116.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the shape capable of being grasped by at least two appendages of the set of appendages is defined along a single axis, Fig.1 #116 disk shape and
the set of potential grasps within the first grasp region includes grasps having different rotations around the single axis and/or translations along the single axis. Fig.1 #116 disk shape
5. canceled
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the target grasp is determined based, at least in part, on one or both of a placement location of the object associated with the manipulation goal or a location of the object prior to grasping the object. Fig.4 #402Select An Item To Move From A First Location To A Second Location
7. The method of claim 1, wherein determining, within the first grasp region, the target grasp, comprises
determining the target grasp based, at least in part, on one or more of
a balance constraint of the robotic device when griping the object,
a collision constraint associated with the robotic device when griping the object, 58; an angle at which a robotic arm is to grasp the feature (to avoid collision with other items) Addressed but may not be selected.
a gaze constraint associated with a camera of the robotic device when manipulating the object, or one or more 60; robotic system moves, cameras 115, 117 collect more data (e.g., closer, different angles, different lighting, reflectivity, etc.) and the robotic system 101 adjusts how it causes end effector 108 to grasp an item based on the new data. Addressed but may not be selected.
kinematics constraints of the robotic device.
MPEP 2111.04(11)
Regarding the method claim 1 the limitation “when”. Examiner notes, since the claims are all method claims, if the first step has been met (e.g. when manipulating the object), then the remaining step is not required to be rejected because it is an "when or if" statement which is conditioned from the steps of where "when". The argument to claim 1 is applied also applied to dependent claims 8, and 18, which rely on the condition "when" According to MPEP 2111.04(11) and Ex parte Schulhauser. As such Examiner will not be considering the non-selected option.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the collision constraint is a self-collision constraint of the robotic device and/or an external collision constraint of the robotic device with an object in an environment of the robotic device. Claim 7 is based on Boolean, Collision may not be selected as such claim 8 is not selected. 58; an angle at which a robotic arm is to grasp the feature (to avoid collision with other items) Addressed but may not be selected. MPEP 2111.04(11)
9. The method of claim 1, wherein determining, within the first grasp region, the target grasp, comprises performing an optimization that considers for each potential grasp in the set of potential grasps within the first grasp region:
a location of the potential grasp within the first grasp region, and 61; determine an optimal grasp location for the item.
one or more
kinematic or
reachability constraints of the robotic device to achieve the potential grasp. 52; sub-segments of an item are determined based on a reach of end effector's 108 interaction with the item
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the first grasp region has a first axis, and the set of potential grasps within the first grasp region include potential grasps at different rotations around the first axis and/or translations along the first axis. Fig. 1 #114, 112, 116 all are 3D and all have axis. Also 40; the robotic arm may be rotated such that gravity is being applied to the grasped item in a different axis.
11. Canceled
12. The method of claim 1, wherein grasping the object using the target grasp comprises controlling the robotic device to re-grasp the object using the grasp. 67; re-grasps the item.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein re-grasping the object is performed during movement of the object from a first location to a second location. 67; sets the item down [during movement] and re-grasps the item. Also 40 during movement the robotic arm may be rotated such that gravity is being applied to the grasped item in a different axis. In some embodiments, the robotic system proactively adjusts the grasp motion to prevent slippage.
14. The method of claim 12, wherein re-grasping the object comprises rotating a grasp of the object by the end effector of the robotic device around a first axis of the first grasp region and/or translating the grasp of the object by the end effector of the robotic device along the first axis of the first grasp region. 40 during movement the robotic arm may be rotated such that gravity is being applied to the grasped item in a different axis [regrasping]. In some embodiments, the robotic system proactively adjusts the grasp motion to prevent slippage.
15. The method of claim 1, wherein grasping the object using the target grasp comprises controlling the robotic device to place the object at a location using the target grasp.Fig.4 #402 A second location.
16. The method of claim 1, wherein the end effector is a first end effector of the robotic device, the target grasp is a first target grasp for the first end effector, the information associated with the capability of the robotic device to perform the target grasp is first information, and the robotic device includes a second end effector, the method further comprising:
assigning a second grasp region to the second end effector; 40 during movement the robotic arm may be rotated such that gravity is being applied to the grasped item in a different axis [regrasping]. In some embodiments, the robotic system proactively adjusts the grasp motion to prevent slippage.
determining, within the second grasp region, a second target grasp for the second end effector, wherein the second target grasp is determined based, at least in part, on second information associated with a capability of the robotic device to perform the second target grasp; and 40 during movement the robotic arm may be rotated such that gravity [second information] is being applied to the grasped item in a different axis [regrasping]. In some embodiments, the robotic system proactively adjusts the grasp motion to prevent slippage.
grasping the object using the first target grasp and the second target grasp. 40 during movement the robotic arm may be rotated such that gravity [second information] is being applied to the grasped item in a different axis [regrasping]. In some embodiments, the robotic system proactively adjusts the grasp motion to prevent slippage.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein determining the first target grasp and the second target grasp comprises using a technique that considers the first information and the second information. 40 during movement the robotic arm may be rotated such that gravity [second information] is being applied to the grasped item in a different axis [regrasping]. In some embodiments, the robotic system proactively adjusts the grasp motion to prevent slippage.
18. The method of claim 16, wherein the first grasp region is located on an opposite side of the object from the second grasp region and/or the first grasp region is located at a different height on the object from the second grasp region to improve stability of the object when grasped by the robotic device. 40 during movement the robotic arm may be rotated [opposite side] such that gravity [second information] is being applied to the grasped item in a different axis [regrasping]. In some embodiments, the robotic system proactively adjusts the grasp motion to prevent slippage [improve stability]. MPEP 2111.04(11)
19-20. are rejected based on the same rejections made to claim 1
22. The method of claim 1, wherein the target grasp is determined based, at least in part, on how the object is to be placed at a placement location associated with the manipulation goal. 54; controller 106 may change a control strategy associated with placing an item, such that the curved item is placed more carefully and more slowly ungripped to prevent the item from rolling away when placed.
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 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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su as applied to claim above, and further in view of Nagarajan US 20190248003.
New claim 21 introduces limitations outside of the scope of the claim invention and is not related to grasp.
21. Su teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1,
But does not teach wherein the robotic device includes at least two appendages configured to move the robotic device about an environment.
However, Nagarajan teaches [0048] alternative robots may be utilized, including robots having other robot arm forms, robots having a humanoid [two leg appendages to move the robotic device] form, robots having an animal form, robots that move via one or more wheels (e.g., self-balancing robots), submersible vehicle robots, an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”), and so forth. Also, although particular grasping end effectors are illustrated in FIG. 1, additional and/or alternative end effectors may be utilized, such as alternative impactive grasping end effectors (e.g., those with grasping “plates”, those with more or fewer “digits”/“claws”), “ingressive” grasping end effectors, “astrictive” grasping end effectors, or “contigutive” grasping end effectors, or non-grasping end effectors.
Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for the purpose of configuring robots for grasping end effectors such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. The combination is also considered obvious to try as stated in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIHAR A KARWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11am.-7pm.
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 on 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 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.
/SIHAR A KARWAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights