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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 and 20 in the reply filed on 6/3/26 is acknowledged. Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
A “holding unit” is considered under BRI to be any mechanism capable of holding an item, (e.g. Specification, ¶ 42 “pinching unit 120, adsorption unit 140”, ¶ 43 “magnetic force, jamming gripper”).
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) 1-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagihara et al., US 20260084312 A1 in view of Ku et al., US 11273552 B2.
1. A handling system that handles an object, comprising:
a holding unit configured to hold the object, (see Hagihara, ¶ 56 “The gripping method may be implemented by adsorbing, holding, and clipping the article 7-1”);
a storage unit configured to store operation setting information and operation history information, wherein the operation setting information associates first information entailed in a holding operation in which the holding unit holds the object, with second information including an operation setting for operating the holding unit, and wherein the operation history information includes operation records of the holding unit, (see Hagihara, fig. 6, ¶ 44, 53, 85, Claim 7: “a database for accumulating history information indicating whether the handling condition has been satisfied in past operations for gripping and moving the article; and a handling information change unit for changing the handling information based on the history information”); and
Hagihara fails to disclose the following updating feature taught by reference to Ku:
a processing unit configured to: control an operation of the holding unit on the basis of the operation setting information, update the operation history information on the basis of operation records of the operation, and determine whether to update the operation setting information on the basis of the updated operation history information, (see Ku, col. 1, line 67- col. 2, line 3 “updating the grasp probability score for the grasp location based on the grasp outcome (e.g., success or failure) S700; and/or any other suitable elements”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the features of Hagihara and Ku because of the following findings of fact:
F. Known Work in One Field of Endeavor May Prompt Variations of It for Use in Either the Same Field or a Different One Based on Design Incentives or Other Market Forces if the Variations Are Predictable to One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
(1) the scope and content of the prior art in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention include a similar or analogous device (method, or product), i.e. CPC classification B25J MANIPULATORS; CHAMBERS PROVIDED WITH MANIPULATION DEVICES;
(2) there were design incentives or market forces which would have prompted adaptation of the known device (method, or product), (see Ku, col. 2, line 63; col. 3, line 8)(improve picking for objects with internal cavities; or highly occluded and/or overlapping objects);
(3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art;
(4) one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
2. The handling system according to claim 1, wherein, in a case in which it is determined to update the operation setting information for particular first information, the processing unit determines whether to update the operation setting information for other first information, (see Ku, col. 5, lines 58-col. 6, line 9 “The grasp probability module can function to determine and/or update grasp probability scores for subregions and/or grasp locations therein…The grasp probability scores can be predetermined; empirically determined (e.g., calculated based on historic grasp attempts at the point); updated based on prior iterations, dynamically determined (e.g., based on the measured scene parameters); and/or otherwise determined”).
3. The handling system according to claim 2, wherein the processing unit determines whether to update the operation setting information for the other first information at least on the basis of one or more of attributes of the object, location of the object, attributes of the holding unit, and location of the holding unit in the particular first information and the other first information, (see Ku, col. 5, lines 58-col. 6, line 9 “The grasp probability module can function to determine and/or update grasp probability scores for subregions and/or grasp locations therein…The grasp probability scores can be predetermined; empirically determined (e.g., calculated based on historic grasp attempts at the point); updated based on prior iterations, dynamically determined (e.g., based on the measured scene parameters); and/or otherwise determined”).
4. The handling system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit evaluates a result of operation control of the holding unit, and the operation history information includes information of evaluation of the operation control, (see Ku, col. 5, lines 58-col. 6, line 9 “The predetermined grasp probability score can be determined based on the number of grasp attempt successes and the number of grasp attempt failures (e.g., success divided by total grasp outcomes, failure divided by total grasp outcomes, etc.)”).
5. The handling system according to claim 4, wherein the processing unit determines whether there has been a sign of a failure in the operation control of the holding unit, and the information of evaluation includes information indicating whether there has been a sign of a failure, (see Ku, col. 5, lines 58-col. 6, line 9 “The predetermined grasp probability score can be determined based on the number of grasp attempt successes and the number of grasp attempt failures (e.g., success divided by total grasp outcomes, failure divided by total grasp outcomes, etc.)”).
6. The handling system according to claim 4, wherein the processing unit determines whether to update the operation setting information on the basis of the number or frequency of appearance of a particular evaluation in the operation history information, (see Ku, col. 5, lines 58-col. 6, line 9 “The grasp probability module can function to determine and/or update grasp probability scores for subregions and/or grasp locations therein…The grasp probability scores can be predetermined; empirically determined (e.g., calculated based on historic grasp attempts at the point); updated based on prior iterations, dynamically determined (e.g., based on the measured scene parameters); and/or otherwise determined”).
7. The handling system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit performs a first update determination of determining whether to update the operation setting information to change the holding unit that performs a handling operation, (see Ku, col. 5, lines 58-col. 6, line 9 “The grasp probability module can function to determine and/or update grasp probability scores for subregions and/or grasp locations therein…The grasp probability scores can be predetermined; empirically determined (e.g., calculated based on historic grasp attempts at the point); updated based on prior iterations, dynamically determined (e.g., based on the measured scene parameters); and/or otherwise determined”).
8. The handling system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit performs a second update determination of determining whether to update the operation setting information so as to decrease a speed and/or acceleration of the holding unit on a movement route of the holding unit, (see Hagihara, ¶ 42 “maximum speed and/or acceleration”).
9. The handling system according to claim 1, wherein the operation history information includes retry information indicating whether the processing unit has retried processing for a handling operation, and the processing unit determines whether to update the operation setting information at least on the basis of the retry information, (see Ku, fig 1, S200 and S400 “blacklist regions of the object with a low success probability, removing them from consideration for subsequent selection of a candidate grasp location. S200 can be repeated for all detected objects in the scene, a single object, and/or any other suitable set of objects”, “S400 can be repeated for all subregions of each detected object instance, for all unoccluded subregions of each detected object instance, for the subregion with the highest graspability score”).
10. The handling system according to claim 9, wherein the processing unit determines to update the operation setting information in a case in which the number or frequency of retries is equal to or greater than a threshold value, (see Ku, fig 1, S200 and S400 “blacklist regions of the object with a low success probability, removing them from consideration for subsequent selection of a candidate grasp location. S200 can be repeated for all detected objects in the scene, a single object, and/or any other suitable set of objects”, “S400 can be repeated for all subregions of each detected object instance, for all unoccluded subregions of each detected object instance, for the subregion with the highest graspability score”).
11. The handling system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit performs a third update determination of determining whether to update the operation setting information so as to increase the speed and/or acceleration of the holding unit on all or a part of the movement route of the holding unit, (see Hagihara, ¶ 42 “maximum speed and/or acceleration”).
12. The handling system according to claim 1, wherein the operation setting information includes critical value information that specifies an upper limit value and/or a lower limit value of a physical quantity related to the operation control of the holding unit, and the processing unit updates the critical value information in a case in which it is determined to update the operation setting information, (see Ku, col. 1, line 67- col. 2, line 3 “updating the grasp probability score for the grasp location based on the grasp outcome (e.g., success or failure) S700; and/or any other suitable elements”). Grasp probability score is considered to include critical value information that specifies an upper limit value and/or a lower limit value of a physical quantity related to the operation control of the holding unit.
13. The handling system according to claim 1, wherein the operation setting information includes change pattern information that specifies a change pattern of a physical quantity related to the operation control of the holding unit, and the processing unit updates the change pattern information in a case in which it is determined to update the operation setting information, (see Ku, col. 1, line 67- col. 2, line 3 “updating the grasp probability score for the grasp location based on the grasp outcome (e.g., success or failure) S700; and/or any other suitable elements”). Grasp probability score is considered to include change pattern information that specifies a change pattern of a physical quantity related to the operation control of the holding unit.
14. The handling system according to claim 1, wherein the operation setting information includes position posture information that specifies a position and/or a posture of the holding unit, and the processing unit updates the position posture information in a case in which it is determined to update the operation setting information, (see Ku, col. 1, line 67- col. 2, line 3 “updating the grasp probability score for the grasp location based on the grasp outcome (e.g., success or failure) S700; and/or any other suitable elements”). Grasp probability score is considered to include position posture information that specifies a position and/or a posture of the holding unit.
15. The handling system according to claim 1, wherein the operation setting is a default setting in the operation control of the holding unit, (see Hagihara, abstract “a gripping position estimation unit that estimates a gripping position of the picking robot 3 with respect to the article 7 on the basis of the plurality of element reliabilities”). The estimated gripping position is considered to be a form of default setting.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis and rationale as claims 1-15 rejected above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20060104788 A1, US 20130184871 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL S GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-7285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5.
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, FLORIAN ZEENDER can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/RUSSELL S GLASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights