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 .
This office action is a response to an application filed 04/26/2024, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitations “…a vacuum device in operable connectivity with the suction device and configured to generate a suction force to enable the suction device to perform a grasp attempt. at least one pressure sensor operably positioned with respect to the suction device and the vacuum device, and …” (Emphasis added by the Examiner).
The accepted form of a claim is comprised of a sentence that ends with a period. Other periods are not generally accepted elsewhere in the claim (see MPEP 608.01(m)). As emphasized above, claim 1 contains an additional period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2022/0289501 to Sun et al., (hereinafter Sun), in view of US Patent No. 11,478,942 to Lee et al., (hereinafter Lee)
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a robotic picking device (Robotic system for picking an item, see p31, Sun) comprising:
a suction device (suction-type end-effector device can be used, see p204, 144, Sun);
a device configured to generate a suction force to enable the suction device to perform a grasp attempt (suction-type end-effector used to picking items, with the implication of a suction force for grasping an item, and thus a grasp attempt, see p204, p31, 267, 203, Sun).
at least one pressure sensor operably positioned with respect to the suction device, and configured to detect a pressure level associated with the suction device at least during the grasp attempt (A pressure sensed with sensors for associated suction-type end effector device during grasping, see p204, p31, 267, 203, Sun);
and a control system configured to analyze the detected pressure level to determine whether the suction device grasped more than one item during the grasp attempt (Robotic system uses detected pressure level in determining whether a suction-type end-effector device has grasped more items than expected, see p204, p31, 267, 203, Sun).
Sun does not explicitly teach a vacuum device in operable connectivity with a suction device;
However, Lee from the same or similar field of suction based robotic picking assemblies, teaches a vacuum device in operable connectivity with a suction device (Vacuum system with lines is coupled to picking assembly, and the system also includes pressure sensors associated with the vacuum suction system assembly, see C6L3-20, C2L41-50, C7L37-43, C14L28-44, Lee).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suction-type picking as described by Sun and incorporating a vacuum device, as taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide the needed suction for grasping an object by employing a vacuum system will produce a negative pressure and thus suction and pressure sensing associated with the vacuum device to detect airflow characteristics that permit assessment of the suction grasping (see C6L3-20, C2L41-50, C7L37-43, C14L28-44).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sun and Lee teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Sun further teaches wherein a control system is further configured to perform a corrective action upon determining a suction device grasped more than one item during a grasp attempt (In response to determining that the robotic arm has grasped more items than expected, the robotic system can determine an active measure for performing a desired action, thus a corrective action, see p205, p204, p31, 267, 203, Sun).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sun and Lee teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Sun further teaches wherein a corrective action includes at least one of issuing an alert or releasing items (In response to determining that the robotic arm has grasped more items than expected, the robotic system can determine an active measure that can include releasing items. Alerts can be issued in abnormal operations, see p205, p81, p204, p31, 267, 203, Sun).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sun and Lee teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Sun further teaches wherein a control system is further configured to: obtain a first input pressure level from a pressure sensor before a suction device performs a grasp attempt, compare the first input pressure level to an expected input pressure level (A pressure can be attained prior to a grasp attempt for a pick operation, such as by a test diagnostic, and compared to an expected operation pressure, see P63, p81, Sun), and issuing an alert upon detecting that a first input pressure level deviates from the expected input pressure level beyond a threshold amount (A determined abnormal sensed pressure determined beyond a threshold amount, can prompt a alert, see P81, Sun)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sun and Lee teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Sun further teaches further comprising a mass detection device configured to detect a mass of at least one item grasped by a suction device, wherein a control system further determines that the suction device grasped more than one item during a grasp attempt based at least in part on the detected mass (A combination of sensors, including pressure and weight systems (i.e. detection device), can be employed to determine that a suction grasping device has more items than expected, where it is understood that weight is a form of mass detection, see p204, p137, p205, p81, p204, p31, 267, 203, Sun).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sun and Lee teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Sun further teaches further comprising an arm portion operably connected to a suction device, wherein a mass detection device is configured with the arm portion (A robotic arm that can be used in suction-type picking, can include weight sensors, see p49, p204, p137, p205, p81, p204, p31, 267, 203, Sun).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sun and Lee teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Sun further teaches wherein a suction device is further configured to perform a second grasp attempt upon a control system determining the suction device grasped more than one item during a grasp attempt (When more items than expected have been grasped in a first attempt, the system can return an item, thus embodying a second grasp attempt to have the system grasp the desired item, see p215, p204, p137, p205, p81, p204, p31, 267, 203, Sun).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sun and Lee teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Lee further teaches wherein an at least one pressure sensor includes a vacuum pressure sensor positioned to measure a vacuum pressure level associated with a suction device (Vacuum system with lines is coupled to picking assembly, and the system also includes vacuum pressure sensors associated with the vacuum suction system assembly, see C6L3-20, C2L41-50, C7L37-43, C14L28-44, Lee).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suction-type picking as described by the combination that includes Sun and incorporating a vacuum pressure sensor, as taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide pressure sensing associated with a vacuum device to detect airflow characteristics that permit assessment of a suction for which vacuum pressure will produce a negative pressure and thus suction needed for grasping an object (see C6L3-20, C2L41-50, C7L37-43, C14L28-44).
Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, in view of Lee, and in further view of over US Patent Publication No. 2023/0332941 to Ttraverso et al., (hereinafter Ttraverso)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sun and Lee teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Sun further teaches wherein a control system determines that a suction device grasped more than one item based on a level detected during a grasp attempt being above a threshold level (A determination of whether more items than expected have been grasped is made based on determining weight of items held compared to an expected weight of the expected item, meaning the determination of more items than expected is made on a weight level being above the expected weight level of the expected single item, see p204-205, p31, 267, 203, Sun).
Sun does not explicitly teach a weight level in terms of pressure level;
However, Ttraverso from the same or similar field of suction based assemblies, teaches a weight level in terms of pressure level (Weight and quantity of objects can be derived from pressure indicative of suction or vacuum pressure, see p15, p1-2, p23, Ttraverso).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suction-type picking as described by the combination that includes Sun and incorporating pressure level based item weight/quantity determination, as taught by Ttraverso.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to substitute a direct weight based determination for a quantity of object items with an equivalent means of determining object weight and/or quantity by utilizing pressure level of an amount of section for the objects that naturally correlates/maps to weight od said objects, and thus leads to equivalent pressure based comparison determination (see p15, p1-2, p23, Ttraverso).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sun and Lee teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Sun further teaches wherein a control system determines a suction device grasped more than one item based on a difference between levels being above a threshold amount (A determination of whether more items than expected have been grasped is made based on determining weight of items held compared to an expected weight of the expected item, meaning the determination of more items than expected is made on a weight level being above the expected weight level of the expected single item, see p204-205, p31, 267, 203, Sun) .
Sun does not explicitly teach a quantity based on a difference between a vacuum pressure level before a grasp attempt and a vacuum pressure level during the grasp.
However, Ttraverso from the same or similar field of suction based assemblies, teaches a quantity based on a difference between a vacuum pressure level before a grasp attempt and a vacuum pressure level during the grasp (A quantity of objects can be derived from pressure indicative of suction or vacuum pressure prior to a current suction grasp by comparison of any difference a pressure based weight with a current object grasped, see p24, 40-45, p77, p81, 33, 35, p15, p1-2, p23, Ttraverso).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suction-type picking as described by the combination that includes Sun and incorporating pressure level based item quantity comparison determination, as taught by Ttraverso.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to compare a previously determined pressure based weight of an expected object to a current object being suctioned so as to determine a possible difference indicative of whether the current object maps in expected weight quantity to the previous level (see p24, 40-45, p77, p81, 33, 35, p15, p1-2, p23, Ttraverso).
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zizka et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2024/0199333 teaches a picker apparatus that includes verification of a picking based on a whether a predetermined ration of detected pressures to detect flow exceeds a predetermined threshold, and determines if multiple objects have been picked based on a weight sensor.
Kniss, US Patent Publication No. 2006/0043747 teaches movement of objects by engagement of vacuum cups, and determination of a number of objects picked by use of proximity sensing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights