DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final, first office action on the merits in response to applicant’s communication filed on 03/28/2024 (provisional filed on 03/28/2023), wherein claims 1-27 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/20/2024, 03/05/2025, and 04/21/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claims 3, 12, and 22 invoke 112(f) describing a “pre-loading assembly.” Similarly, claims 4, 13, and 23 invoke 112(f) describing a “preloading assembly.” The meaning is not fully understood in view of applicant’s specification and drawings since it is not explicitly mentioned in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 12, and 22 recite the term a “pre-loading assembly” versus claims 4, 13, and 23 which recite a “preloading assembly.” This appears to be the same element described in two different terms. Similarly, claims 1, 9, and 18 recite the term “collection of objects” versus the antecedent “a plurality of objects.” The metes and bounds of the limitation therefore cannot be ascertained.
Claim limitations “pre-loading assembly” and “preloading assembly” in claims 3, 4, 12, 13, 22, and 23 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 10, 14-16, 18-20, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clucas et al. (US 20180362270 A1), hereinafter “Clucas,” in view of Wagner et al. (US 20190248025 A1), hereinafter “Wagner.”
Regarding Claim 1, Clucas discloses:
An object processing system comprising:
a mobile system for moving from a proximal location toward a plurality of objects in a
trailer of a tractor trailer (See Fig. 14, robotic carton unloader 400); (See Par. [0137]: “configured to be driven in and out of semi-trailer 10”); (See Par. [0167]: “The robotic carton unloader 400 may be similar to robotic carton unloader 100 described above with reference to FIGS. 1-6, and may include a mobile body 402 and robotically controlled carton remover system 404 similar to those described above. One difference between the robotic carton unloader 400 and robotic carton unloader 100, may be that robotic carton unloader 400 may include a vacuum manipulator 408 coupled to the robotic positioner 406.”),
said mobile system including at least one conveyor section for transporting any objects on the at least one conveyor section out of the trailer (See Par. [0137]: “conveyor system 135 that may extend from one end of robotic carton unloader 100 to the other end of robotic carton unloader”),
the at least one conveyor section including a leading edge at a front of the mobile system as the mobile unit moves toward the collection of objects in the trailer (See Par. [0139]: “conveyor system 135 may be wider at the front (e.g., at the end of the conveyor closest to the carton pile 11)”); (See Par. (0140): “leading conveyor 143”); and
a programmable motion device including an end-effector for grasping and moving the plurality of objects toward the at least one conveyor section (See Par. [0167]: “robotic carton unloader 400 may include a vacuum manipulator 408 coupled to the robotic positioner 406. The robotic positioner 406 may be any type robotic arm, such as the FANUC® Robot R-1000ia sold by FANUC® Robotics America Corporation described above, and may extend the vacuum manipulator 408 forward toward the carton pile 11, backward (or rearward) from the carton pile 11, to the left, to the right, and/or rotate the vacuum manipulator 408. The robotic positioner 406 and vacuum manipulator 408 may be connected to a control and visualization system, such as control and visualization system 180”);
the end-effector including a plurality of vacuum cups (See Par. [0176]: “Series of vacuum rods 429 with major vacuum cups 422 and/or minor vacuum cups 424 may comprise the first bank of vacuum rods 416, second bank of vacuum rods 418, and/or third bank of vacuum rods 420.”)
Clucas does disclose that each cup communicates with a vacuum source through its rod. (See Par. [0170]: “In operation, the vacuum generators may draw a vacuum which may pull fluid through the vacuum lines, through the respective vacuum rods and through the respective vacuum cups.”); (See Par. [0175]: “a central passage 440 through which fluid may travel from the major vacuum cup 422, through the center of the guide rod 430, and out the vacuum coupling 434.”). Clucas further mentions valves (See Par. [0167] (emphasis added): “For example, the control and visualization system may monitor sensor inputs received from sensors on the robotic positioner 406 and/or vacuum manipulators 408, and send control signals, such as electrical control signals or fluid control signals, to motors, valves, actuators, and/or other devices of the robotic positioner 406 and/or vacuum manipulator 408 to control the robotic positioner 406 and/or vacuum manipulator.
However, Clucas does not appear to disclose wherein each (of the vacuum cups) is associated with a valve assembly and each of the vacuum cups being in communication with a vacuum source via each respective valve assembly.
In the field of endeavor, Wagner teaches:
wherein each of which [a suction cup equivalent] is associated with a valve assembly and each of the cups being in communication with a vacuum source via each respective valve assembly. (See Par. [0034]: “With further reference to FIG. 2, the check valve plate consists of a number of chambers, each having a straight opening 30 at the bottom and a chamfered opening 32 at the top. A single such chamber (supply conduit) 34 is shown in detail in FIG. 2, together with a supply conduit plug (ball) 36 and the opening to the vacuum plenum block 32, and a pressure sensor 38. The pressure sensor 38 is responsive to the pressure within the chamber 34 and provides a signal to a printed circuit board 40 in the check valve plate 16. The screen plate 18 includes a plurality of screen openings in communication with chamber 34. Each of the openings 30 and chambers 34 align with and are associated with a unique aperture in the sealing foam gripper 20, and each check valve assembly (including the chamber 34, opening 32, conduit plug 36 and pressure sensor 38) functions independent of the other check valve assemblies.”); (See Par. [0035]: “The top opening 32 mates to the plenum, thus providing a vacuum to the check valve chamber 34. The bottom opening 30 delivers the vacuum through the screen plate 18 to the bottom surface of the gripper 20”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clucas so that each vacuum cup (422, 424) communicates with the vacuum source through a respective check valve assembly (chamber 34/plug 36), as disclosed by Wagner, in order to automatically isolate cups that fail to seal against a carton, because Wagner teaches at Par. [0035] that when a port “is open to atmosphere (i.e., not making contact with an object to be acquired) … the plastic ball 36 will be pulled by the vacuum to the top opening, where it will seat firmly against the chamfer there and effectively seal that particular check valve port … not bleeding off vacuum pressure.” This is a combination of prior art elements according to their established functions to yield a predictable result. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(A). As so modified, each of the plurality of vacuum cups (422, 424) of Clucas is associated with a valve assembly and is in communication with a vacuum source via each respective valve assembly.
Regarding Claim 5, Clucas in view of Wagner discloses:
The object processing system of claim 1, as set forth above.
However, Clucas does not appear to disclose wherein the vacuum source includes a blower that is mounted on the mobile unit, although Clucas’ vacuum-generating components are onboard and mounted on the mobile unit (See Par. [0170]: “A first bank of vacuum generators 442 is illustrated in FIG. 15 coupled to the manipulator frame 410”).
In the field of endeavor, Wagner teaches:
wherein the vacuum source includes a blower (See Par. [0048]: “the regenerative blower 128 as the high flow source”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Wagner’s blower-type source for Clucas’ onboard vacuum generators, mounted on the mobile unit in the position Clucas already reserves for its vacuum source; a simple substitution of one known vacuum source for another to obtain predictable results. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(B). As so modified, the vacuum source includes a blower mounted on the mobile unit.
Regarding Claim 6, Clucas in view of Wagner discloses:
The object processing system of claim 1, as set forth above.
Clucas further discloses:
wherein the plurality of vacuum cups at the end-effector form a first plurality of vacuum cups associated with a first zone, and wherein the end-effector includes a second plurality of vacuum cups associated with a second zone. According to Par. [0169], Clucas mentions the vacuum cups are grouped into a first bank of vacuum rods (416—First Zone/First Plurality) and a second bank of vacuum rods (418—Second Zone/Second Plurality) where “the banks of vacuum rods 416, 418, and 420 may include different numbers of vacuum rods and vacuum cups” and each bank being independently extendable/retractable (See Par. [0182]: “The first bank of vacuum rods 416, the second bank of vacuum rods 418, and the third bank of vacuum rods 420 may be independently extendable and retractable. In this manner, each bank of a plurality of carton connectors, such as the first bank of vacuum rods 416, the second bank of vacuum rods 418, and the third bank of vacuum rods 420, may be configured to move independent of the other banks”).
Regarding Claim 7, Clucas in view of Wagner discloses:
The object processing system of claim 1, as set forth above.
However, Clucas does not appear to disclose wherein the vacuum source is a high flow vacuum source that provides an airflow at each vacuum cup of at least about 100 cubic feet per minute, and a vacuum pressure at each vacuum cup of no more than about 65,000 Pascals below atmospheric.
In the field of endeavor, Wagner teaches:
wherein the vacuum source is a high flow vacuum source that provides an airflow at each vacuum cup of at least about 100 cubic feet per minute (See Par. [0049]: “air flow rate of the blower may be, for example at least about 100 cubic feet per minute (e.g., 130-140 cubic feet per minute)”), and
a vacuum pressure at each vacuum cup of no more than about 65,000 Pascals below atmospheric (See Par. [0049]: “the vacuum pressure provided by the blower 36 may be … no more than about 50,000 Pascals below atmospheric in other examples”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vacuum source of the Clucas/Wagner combination with the airflow and vacuum-pressure magnitudes disclosed by Wagner. Wagner discloses these values at the high-flow source/end-effector opening; applying that source to each Clucas vacuum cup (422, 424) through the respective Wagner valve channel would have rendered the claimed per-cup values obvious, the flow rate and vacuum pressure at each cup being result-effective variables whose optimization to the claimed magnitudes would have been obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05(II); In re Aller.
Regarding Claim 9, a near-identical claim to claim 1, Clucas discloses:
an object processing system comprising: a mobile system for moving from a proximal location toward a plurality of objects in a trailer of a tractor trailer, said mobile system including at least one conveyor section for transporting any objects on the at least one conveyor section out of the trailer, the at least one conveyor section including a leading edge at a front of the mobile system as the mobile unit moves toward the collection of objects in the trailer; and a programmable motion device including an end-effector for grasping and moving the plurality of objects toward the at least one conveyor section. The aforementioned limitations are met by Clucas as set forth in claim 1 within paragraphs [0137], [0139], [0140], [0167], and [0176].
Although Clucas does appear to disclose an end-effector including a plurality
of vacuum cups each of which is in communication with a vacuum source on the mobile system, Clucas does not appear to disclose wherein the vacuum source is a high flow vacuum source.
In the field of endeavor, Wagner teaches:
wherein the end-effector including a plurality of vacuum cups each of which is in communication with a high flow vacuum source. (See Par. [0045]: “a system for providing high flow vacuum control to an end effector of an articulated arm.”). (See Par. [0047]: “as well as a high flow source 104 and a release source 106 that are each coupled to a selection unit 108, that is coupled to an end effector 110.”); And the high flow source being the regenerative blower (128), (See Par. [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clucas so that the vacuum cups draw from a high-flow vacuum source (regenerative blower 128) as disclosed by Wagner, in order to engage cartons of varying surface porosity without a hermetic seal. In the proposed combination, the high-flow vacuum source is carried on the mobile system in the position Clucas already reserves for its onboard vacuum-generating components (first bank of vacuum generators 442 coupled to the manipulator frame 410), (Par. [0170]). See KSR; MPEP § 2143(A). As so modified, the vacuum cups (422,424) of Clucas are in communication with a high-flow vacuum source on the mobile system.
Regarding Claim 10,
Clucas in view of Wagner discloses:
The object processing system of claim 9.
However, Clucas does not appear to disclose wherein each of the vacuum cups is associated with a valve assembly and each of the vacuum cups is in communication with the high flow vacuum source via each respective valve assembly.
In the field of endeavor, Wagner teaches:
wherein each of the vacuum cups is associated with a valve assembly and each of the vacuum cups is in communication with the high flow vacuum source via each respective valve assembly. (See Figs. 2-3, and Par. [0034]: “and each check valve assembly (including the chamber 34, opening 32, conduit plug 36 and pressure sensor 38) functions independent of the other check valve assemblies”); (See Par. [0035]: “The top opening 32 mates to the plenum, thus providing a vacuum to the check valve chamber 34. The bottom opening 30 delivers the vacuum through the screen plate 18 to the bottom surface of the gripper 20”); (See Par. [0047]: “FIG. 8, for example, shows a system 100 for use with an end effector in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention in which an optional high vacuum source 102 is provided as well as a high flow source 104 and a release source 106 that are each coupled to a selection unit 108, that is coupled to an end effector 110”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clucas so that each vacuum cup (422, 424) communicates with the high flow vacuum source through a respective check valve assembly (chamber 34/plug 36), as disclosed by Wagner, in order to automatically isolate cups that fail to seal against a carton, because Wagner teaches at Par. [0035] that when a port “is open to atmosphere (i.e., not making contact with an object to be acquired) … the plastic ball 36 will be pulled by the vacuum to the top opening, where it will seat firmly against the chamfer there and effectively seal that particular check valve port … not bleeding off vacuum pressure.” This is a combination of prior art elements according to their established functions to yield a predictable result. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(A). As so modified, each of the plurality of vacuum cups (422, 424) of Clucas is associated with a valve assembly and is in communication with a vacuum source via each respective valve assembly.
Regarding Claim 14,
Clucas in view of Wagner discloses:
The object processing system of claim 9, as set forth above, wherein the vacuum source includes a blower that is mounted on the mobile unit; (See Wagner, regenerative blower 128, Par. [0048]).
Regarding Claim 15,
Clucas in view of Wagner discloses:
The object processing system of claim 9, wherein the plurality of vacuum cups at the end-
effector form a first plurality of vacuum cups associated with a first zone, and wherein the end-
effector includes a second plurality of vacuum cups associated with a second zone; The first zone / second zone limitation is met by Clucas’ bank of vacuum rods (416, 418) (See Pars. [0169], [0182]).
Regarding Claim 16,
Clucas in view of Wagner discloses:
The object processing system of claim 9, as set forth above.
However, Clucas does not appear to disclose wherein the vacuum source is a high flow vacuum source that provides an airflow at each vacuum cup of at least about 100 cubic feet per minute, and a vacuum pressure at each vacuum cup of no more than about 65,000 Pascals below atmospheric.
In the field of endeavor, Wagner teaches:
wherein the high flow vacuum source provides an airflow at each vacuum cup of at least about 100 cubic feet per minute (See Par. [0049]: “air flow rate of the blower may be, for example at least about 100 cubic feet per minute (e.g., 130-140 cubic feet per minute)”), and
a vacuum pressure at each vacuum cup of no more than about 65,000 Pascals below atmospheric (See Par. [0049]: “the vacuum pressure provided by the blower 36 may be … no more than about 50,000 Pascals below atmospheric in other examples”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vacuum source of the Clucas/Wagner combination with the airflow and vacuum-pressure magnitudes disclosed by Wagner. Wagner discloses these values at the high-flow source/end-effector opening; applying that source to each Clucas vacuum cup (422, 424) through the respective Wagner valve channel would have rendered the claimed per-cup values obvious, the flow rate and vacuum pressure at each cup being result-effective variables whose optimization to the claimed magnitudes would have been obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05(II); In re Aller.
Regarding Claim 18,
Clucas discloses a method of processing object comprising:
moving a mobile system from a proximal location toward a plurality of objects in a trailer
of a tractor trailer, said mobile system including at least one conveyor section for transporting any
objects on the at least one conveyor section out of the trailer, the at least one conveyor section
including a leading edge at a front of the mobile system as the mobile system moves toward the
collection of objects in the trailer; The limitations are met by Clucas as set forth in claim 1 (See Pars. [0137] and [0167], mobile body 402 driven into semi-trailer 10), (See Par. [0137], conveyor system 135), (See Pars. [0139-0140], leading conveyor 143 at front).
However, Clucas does not appear to disclose providing a high flow vacuum at a plurality of vacuum cups on an end-effector of a programable motion device; and contacting the plurality of objects with the high flow vacuum at the vacuum cups while the high flow vacuum is providing vacuum at the vacuum cups.
In the field of endeavor, Wagner teaches:
providing a high flow vacuum at a plurality of vacuum cups on an end-effector of a programable motion device; and contacting the plurality of objects with the high flow vacuum at the vacuum cups while the high flow vacuum is providing vacuum at the vacuum cups (See Par. [0045]: “a system for providing high flow vacuum control to an end effector of an articulated arm.”). (See Par. [0048]: “the regenerative blower 128 as the high flow source”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clucas so that the vacuum cups draw from a high-flow vacuum source (regenerative blower 128) as disclosed by Wagner, in order to engage cartons of varying surface porosity without a hermetic seal. In the proposed combination, the high-flow vacuum source is carried on the mobile system in the position Clucas already reserves for its onboard vacuum-generating components (first bank of vacuum generators 442 coupled to the manipulator frame 410), (Par. [0170]). See KSR; MPEP § 2143(A). As so modified, the vacuum cups (422,424) of Clucas are in communication with a high-flow vacuum source on the mobile system.
Regarding Claim 19,
Clucas in view of Wagner discloses:
The method of claim 18, wherein the method further includes contacting at least one vacuum cup with an object and closing other vacuum cups that are not in contact with the object. (See Wagner Par. [0036]: “when the port is not making contact with an object to be acquired, air will flow through this opening, lifting the ball to the top of the chamber and sealing off that particular port. When the port is making contact with an object, the vacuum will be present in the chamber 34 and will hold the object against the surface 22 of the gripper 20.”)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this valve behavior into the method of Clucas so that vacuum drawn from the source is preserved at the engaged cups “by using these types of ports, it is ensured that any ports that are not actually making contact with an object to be acquired are sealed and not bleeding off vacuum pressure,” (Wagner Par. [0035]). See KSR; MPEP § 2143(A).
Regarding Claim 20,
Clucas in view of Wagner discloses:
The method of claim 18, wherein each of the vacuum cups is associated with a valve
assembly and each of the vacuum cups is in communication with the high flow vacuum source via
each respective valve assembly. (See Wagner Figs. 2-3, and Par. [0034]: “and each check valve assembly (including the chamber 34, opening 32, conduit plug 36 and pressure sensor 38) functions independent of the other check valve assemblies”); (See Par. [0035]: “The top opening 32 mates to the plenum, thus providing a vacuum to the check valve chamber 34. The bottom opening 30 delivers the vacuum through the screen plate 18 to the bottom surface of the gripper 20”); (See Par. [0047]: “FIG. 8, for example, shows a system 100 for use with an end effector in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention in which an optional high vacuum source 102 is provided as well as a high flow source 104 and a release source 106 that are each coupled to a selection unit 108, that is coupled to an end effector 110”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clucas so that each vacuum cup (422, 424) communicates with the high flow vacuum source via each respective valve assembly (chamber 34/plug 36), as disclosed by Wagner, in order to automatically isolate cups that fail to seal against a carton, because Wagner teaches at Par. [0035] that when a port “is open to atmosphere (i.e., not making contact with an object to be acquired) … the plastic ball 36 will be pulled by the vacuum to the top opening, where it will seat firmly against the chamfer there and effectively seal that particular check valve port … not bleeding off vacuum pressure.” This is a combination of prior art elements according to their established functions to yield a predictable result. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(A). As so modified, each of the plurality of vacuum cups (422, 424) of Clucas is associated with a valve assembly and is in communication with a vacuum source via each respective valve assembly.
Regarding Claim 24,
Clucas in view of Wagner discloses:
The method of claim 18, wherein the vacuum source includes a blower that is mounted on
the mobile unit. (See Wagner, Par. [0048], regenerative blower 128).
Regarding Claim 25,
Clucas in view of Wagner discloses:
The method of claim 18, wherein the plurality of vacuum cups at the end-effector form a
first plurality of vacuum cups associated with a first zone, and wherein the end-effector includes a
second plurality of vacuum cups associated with a second zone. (See Clucas, Pars. [0169] and [0182] describing a first bank of vacuum rods 416, and a second bank of vacuum rods 418).
Regarding Claim 26,
Clucas in view of Wagner discloses:
The method of claim 18, wherein the high flow vacuum source provides an airflow at each
vacuum cup of at least about 100 cubic feet per minute, and a vacuum pressure at each vacuum
cup of no more than about 65,000 Pascals below atmospheric. (See Wagner, Par. [0049]).
Claim 8, 17, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clucas et al. (US 20180362270 A1), in view of Wagner et al. (US 20190248025 A1), further in view of Patil et al. (US 20230062676 A1), hereinafter “Patil.”
Regarding Claim 8, Clucas in view of Wagner discloses:
The object processing system of claim 1, as set forth above, including a single robotic positioner (406) per embodiment as disclosed in Clucas, par. [0167].
However, Clucas/Wagner does not appear to disclose wherein the programmable motion device is provided as one of two programmable motion devices on the mobile unit, and wherein each of the
programmable motion devices includes an end-effector that includes an array of vacuum cups.
In the field of endeavor, Patil teaches:
wherein the programmable motion device is provided as one of two programmable motion devices on the mobile unit, and wherein each of the programmable motion devices includes an end-effector that includes an array of vacuum cups. (See Figs. 1-2, a mobile robot assembly with a first robot (60) and a second robot (80), mounted with respect to a framework (55), with two respective end effectors (70, 90) which both include a respective array of vacuum cups (72, 92)).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively provide the mobile unloader of Clucas with two programmable motion devices, each with an end-effector having an array of vacuum cups, as disclosed by Patil, in order to increase unloading throughput through simultaneous or coordinated transfer of objects, a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and a duplication of the working part for the known effect of parallel operation. See KSR; MPEP §§ 2143(A), 2144.04(VI)(B). As so modified, the programmable motion device of Clucas is provided as one of two programmable motion devices on the mobile unit, each including an end-effector with an array of vacuum cups.
Regarding Claim 17,
Clucas in view of Wagner/Patil discloses:
The object processing system of claim 9, wherein the programmable motion device is
provided as one of two programmable motion devices on the mobile unit, and wherein each of the
programmable motion devices includes an end-effector that includes an array of vacuum cups. The limitations are nearly identical to those of claim 8 and are therefore rejected as set forth above using the same citations and rationale.
Regarding Claim 27,
Clucas in view of Wagner/Patil discloses:
The method of claim 18, wherein the programmable motion device is provided as one of
two programmable motion devices on the mobile unit, and wherein each of the programmable
motion devices includes an end-effector that includes an array of vacuum cups. The limitations are nearly identical to those of claim 8 and are therefore rejected as set forth above using the same citations and rationale.
Claims 2-4, 11-13, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clucas et al. (US 20180362270 A1), in view of Wagner et al. (US 20190248025 A1), further in view of Hauser (EP 1775243 B1) (Cited on IDS submitted 3/5/2025).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Clucas in view of Wagner discloses:
The object processing system of claim 1, as set forth above.
However, Clucas/Wagner does not appear to disclose wherein each valve assembly includes a biasing spring that urges the valve assembly to be in the open position, and wherein each valve assembly includes a pre-loading assembly that applies a pre-load to each biasing spring. Wagner’s ball plug 36 is seated by gravity and vacuum, not by a spring.
In the field of endeavor, Hauser teaches:
wherein each valve assembly includes a biasing spring that urges the valve assembly to be in the open position, and wherein each valve assembly includes a pre-loading assembly that applies a pre-load to each biasing spring. (See Par. [0036]: “the valve piston 46 is prestressed [biased] in the direction of the open position by a spring arrangement 62 formed by a helical compression spring 61 in the region of the valve housing 25”); (See Par. [0037]: “the valve piston 46 is adjusted in the open position of the valve disk 51, i.e. in the direction of the suction bell 40, by a spring force of the helical compression spring 61 of the spring arrangement 62, and the flow opening 48 is thus cleared”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the supply conduit plug of the modified Clucas/Wagner valve assembly to include a pre-loading, biasing-spring assembly urging the plug toward its open position, as taught by Hauser, wherein the spring is selected to that the pressure differential generated at an unsealed port overcomes the spring bias and moves the valve to its closed position. Hauser expressly teaches selecting the spring force relative to the suction force, disclosing that the blocking position is “ensured and maintained … against the action of the compression coil spring 61 by matching the spring force to the applied suction force” (Description of Fig. 2 in English Translation provided by Applicant). Accordingly, the modification provides a normally open valve while preserving Wagner’s selective isolation of unengaged ports. Further, Hauser teaches that selecting the spring force relative to the suction force permits the designer to control the operating threshold at which the valve changes state. Incorporating that teaching into Wagner would therefore have predictably provided positive control over the valve’s opening and closing threshold while maintaining Wagner’s intended isolation function. This is a combination of known valve elements yielding predictable results. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(A),(B).
Regarding Claim 4, Clucas in view of Wagner/Hauser discloses:
The object processing system of claim 3. However, the aforementioned references do not appear to disclose wherein each preloading assembly is adjustable.
It would have been obvious to make the pre-loading assembly adjustable, as making a known fixed feature adjustable is generally obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(D); In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954), permitting optimization of the spring’s opening bias relative to the closing force, a result-effective variable, to accommodate objects of differing surface permeability. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(D); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 11, Clucas in view of Wagner/Hauser discloses:
The object processing system of claim 10, wherein each valve assembly includes a biasing
spring that urges the valve assembly to be in the open position. The limitations are nearly identical to those of claim 2 and are therefore rejected as set forth above using the same citations and rationale. (See Hauser, Pars. [0036-0037]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the supply conduit plug of the modified Clucas/Wagner valve assembly to include a pre-loading, biasing-spring assembly urging the plug toward its open position, as taught by Hauser, wherein the spring is selected to that the pressure differential generated at an unsealed port overcomes the spring bias and moves the valve to its closed position. Hauser expressly teaches selecting the spring force relative to the suction force, disclosing that the blocking position is “ensured and maintained … against the action of the compression coil spring 61 by matching the spring force to the applied suction force” (Description of Fig. 2 in English Translation provided by Applicant). Accordingly, the modification provides a normally open valve while preserving Wagner’s selective isolation of unengaged ports. Further, Hauser teaches that selecting the spring force relative to the suction force permits the designer to control the operating threshold at which the valve changes state. Incorporating that teaching into Wagner would therefore have predictably provided positive control over the valve’s opening and closing threshold while maintaining Wagner’s intended isolation function. This is a combination of known valve elements yielding predictable results. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(A),(B).
Regarding Claim 12, Clucas in view of Wagner/Hauser discloses:
The object processing system of claim 11, wherein each valve assembly includes a pre-
loading assembly that applies a pre-load to each biasing spring. The limitations are nearly identical to those of claim 3 and are therefore rejected as set forth above using the same citations and rationale. (See Hauser, Pars. [0036-0037]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the supply conduit plug of the modified Clucas/Wagner valve assembly to include a pre-loading, biasing-spring assembly urging the plug toward its open position, as taught by Hauser, wherein the spring is selected to that the pressure differential generated at an unsealed port overcomes the spring bias and moves the valve to its closed position. Hauser expressly teaches selecting the spring force relative to the suction force, disclosing that the blocking position is “ensured and maintained … against the action of the compression coil spring 61 by matching the spring force to the applied suction force” (Description of Fig. 2 in English Translation provided by Applicant). Accordingly, the modification provides a normally open valve while preserving Wagner’s selective isolation of unengaged ports. Further, Hauser teaches that selecting the spring force relative to the suction force permits the designer to control the operating threshold at which the valve changes state. Incorporating that teaching into Wagner would therefore have predictably provided positive control over the valve’s opening and closing threshold while maintaining Wagner’s intended isolation function. This is a combination of known valve elements yielding predictable results. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(A),(B).
Regarding Claim 13, Clucas in view of Wagner/Hauser discloses:
The object processing system of claim 12, wherein each preloading assembly is adjustable. The limitations are nearly identical to those of claim 4 and are therefore rejected as set forth above using the same citations and rationale.
It would have been obvious to make the pre-loading assembly adjustable, as making a known fixed feature adjustable is generally obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(D); In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954), permitting optimization of the spring’s opening bias relative to the closing force, a result-effective variable, to accommodate objects of differing surface permeability. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(D); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 21, Clucas in view of Wagner/Hauser discloses:
The method of claim 20, wherein each valve assembly includes a biasing spring that urges
the valve assembly to be in the open position. The limitations are nearly identical to those of claim 2 and are therefore rejected as set forth above using the same citations and rationale. (See Hauser, Pars. [0036-0037]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the supply conduit plug of the modified Clucas/Wagner valve assembly to include a pre-loading, biasing-spring assembly urging the plug toward its open position, as taught by Hauser, wherein the spring is selected to that the pressure differential generated at an unsealed port overcomes the spring bias and moves the valve to its closed position. Hauser expressly teaches selecting the spring force relative to the suction force, disclosing that the blocking position is “ensured and maintained … against the action of the compression coil spring 61 by matching the spring force to the applied suction force” (Description of Fig. 2 in English Translation provided by Applicant). Accordingly, the modification provides a normally open valve while preserving Wagner’s selective isolation of unengaged ports. Further, Hauser teaches that selecting the spring force relative to the suction force permits the designer to control the operating threshold at which the valve changes state. Incorporating that teaching into Wagner would therefore have predictably provided positive control over the valve’s opening and closing threshold while maintaining Wagner’s intended isolation function. This is a combination of known valve elements yielding predictable results. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(A),(B).
Regarding Claim 22, Clucas in view of Wagner/Hauser discloses:
The method of claim 21, wherein each valve assembly includes a pre-loading assembly that applies a pre-load to each biasing spring. The limitations are nearly identical to those of claim 3 and are therefore rejected as set forth above using the same citations and rationale. (See Hauser, Pars. [0036-0037]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the supply conduit plug of the modified Clucas/Wagner valve assembly to include a pre-loading, biasing-spring assembly urging the plug toward its open position, as taught by Hauser, wherein the spring is selected to that the pressure differential generated at an unsealed port overcomes the spring bias and moves the valve to its closed position. Hauser expressly teaches selecting the spring force relative to the suction force, disclosing that the blocking position is “ensured and maintained … against the action of the compression coil spring 61 by matching the spring force to the applied suction force” (Description of Fig. 2 in English Translation provided by Applicant). Accordingly, the modification provides a normally open valve while preserving Wagner’s selective isolation of unengaged ports. Further, Hauser teaches that selecting the spring force relative to the suction force permits the designer to control the operating threshold at which the valve changes state. Incorporating that teaching into Wagner would therefore have predictably provided positive control over the valve’s opening and closing threshold while maintaining Wagner’s intended isolation function. This is a combination of known valve elements yielding predictable results. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(A),(B).
Regarding Claim 23, Clucas in view of Wagner/Hauser discloses:
The method of claim 22, wherein each preloading assembly is adjustable. The limitations are nearly identical to those of claim 4 and are therefore rejected as set forth above using the same citations and rationale.
It would have been obvious to make the pre-loading assembly adjustable, as making a known fixed feature adjustable is generally obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(D); In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954), permitting optimization of the spring’s opening bias relative to the closing force, a result-effective variable, to accommodate objects of differing surface permeability. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(D); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20180118476 A1, Automated Unloading And Loading Robot System, discloses a system includes a robot configured to load and/or unload from a location, such as a cargo carrier or building.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fathi Abdelsalam whose telephone number is (571) 270-0380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10 AM to 6 PM ET.
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
/FATHI K. ABDELSALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights