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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-9, 15, 16,19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previously filed 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot because the amendments filed have necessitated new grounds of rejection as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 13, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US 20170225330 A1), hereinafter Wagner in view of Spies et al. (US 20230321826 A1), hereinafter Spies.
Regarding claim 1, Wagner discloses:
A robotic system, comprising:
a communication interface configured to receive sensor data from a sensor in a workspace (see at least [0032]: “As noted, the robotic pick and place system may include a robotic arm equipped with sensors and computing, that when combined is assumed herein to exhibit the following capabilities…”)
and a processor coupled to the communication interface (see at least [0055]: “Each of the local processors 218 communicates with a central processor 220 that includes a database to provide feedback and learning information regarding experiences in moving objects along different trajectories.”) and configured to:
use the sensor data to determine a location of a target visual feature on an item (see at least [0037]: “In addition to geometric information the system may learn the location of fiducial markers such as barcodes on the object, which can be used as indicator for a surface patch that is flat and impermeable, hence suitable for a suction cup.”)
and use the determined location to generate and implement a plan to move and place the item at a destination location at a prescribed orientation determined based at least in part on the determined location of the target visual feature on the item (see at least [0041]: “The robotic system may include a defined home or base location 84 to which each object may initially be brought upon acquisition from the bin (e.g., 56). In certain embodiments, the system may include a plurality of base locations, as well as a plurality of predetermined path portions associated with the plurality of base locations. The trajectories taken by the articulated arm of the robot system from the input bin to the base location 84 are constantly changing based in part, on the location of each object in the input bin, the orientation of the object in the input bin, and the shape, weight and other physical properties of the object to be acquired.”)
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, but Spies, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
including by rotating the item as needed to place the item at the destination location in the prescribed orientation in which the target visual feature is exposed to view from a vantage point with which the prescribed orientation is associated (See at least [0085-0090]: “Move the object from the corner to the center of the container (parameter: object pose, center of the container)->Pick up object (parameter: object pose)->Scan barcode (parameter: scanner location)->Store object (parameter: object destination) Special case 3: The object 113 is near the center of the container 115, but its barcode is not at the upper surface. Then, a reorientation is required compared to the nominal case: [0087] Pick up object (parameter: object pose)->Reorient object (parameter: object pose)->Pick up object (parameter: object pose)->Scan barcode (parameter: scanner location)->Store object (parameter: object destination) [0088] Special case 4: The object 113 is close to an edge or corner of the container 115, and the barcode is not on the upper surface. Then, a reorientation is required in comparison to special case 2: Move the object from the corner or from the edge to the center of the container (parameter: object pose, center of the container)->Pick up object (parameter: object pose)->Reorient object (parameter: object pose)->Pick up object->Scan barcode (parameter: scanner location)->Drop object (parameter: object destination)”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Wagner with the methods taught by Spies because as stated in the background section of Spies: “A robotic device, such as a robotic arm, that is intended to remove objects from a container should be able to adapt to various situations, e.g. starting conditions. For example, if an object is on the edge rather than in the center of a container, the robot should also be able to pick up the object. However, the robot can need to perform an additional action to this end, e.g. push the object to the center. Approaches are therefore required to control a robotic device that enables successful and efficient control for various situations.”
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Wagner and Spies teaches:
The robotic system of claim 1.
Wagner further discloses wherein the system further comprises a robotic arm equipped with an end effector, wherein the processor is configured to control one or both of the robotic arm and the end effector to grasp the item, move the item to the destination location, and place the item at the destination location in the orientation determined based at least in part on the determined location of the target visual feature on the item (see at least [0062]: “ In accordance with further embodiments, systems of the invention may provide motion planning that accommodates specific needs or requirements, such that an opened container or box be moved without spilling the contents. For example, FIG. 16 shows an end effector 450 of a programmable motion device 456 that has engaged an open box 452 of items using a vacuum cup 454. As further shown in FIG. 17, as the programmable motion device moves the open box 452, the orientation with respect to the vertical axis is maintained, and as shown in FIG. 18, the programmable motion device may place the object 452 on a surface 458 at a processing location in a desired orientation.”)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wagner and Spies teaches:
The robotic system of claim 1.
Wagner further discloses wherein the target feature comprises an optical code (see at least [0003]: “A programmable motion control system picks an object from an input area, passes the object near a scanner, and then, having obtained identification information for the object (such as a barcode, QR codes SKU codes, other identification codes, information read from a label on the object, or size, weight and/or shape information), places the object in the appropriate location in accordance with a manifest.”)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wagner and Spies teaches:
The robotic system of claim 3.
Wagner further discloses wherein the optical code comprises a bar code and the sensor comprises a bar code scanner (see at least [0003]: “A programmable motion control system picks an object from an input area, passes the object near a scanner, and then, having obtained identification information for the object (such as a barcode, QR codes SKU codes, other identification codes, information read from a label on the object, or size, weight and/or shape information), places the object in the appropriate location in accordance with a manifest.”)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wagner and Spies teaches:
The robotic system of claim 1.
Wagner further discloses wherein the sensor comprises a camera and the sensor data comprises image data (see at least [0035]: “FIG. 2 shows a diagrammatic image of a camera view from the perception unit 26, and the image may appear on the image display system 28 of FIG. 1 with superimposed images of an end effector seeking to grasp each object 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52 and 54 in a bin 56, showing the location of each grasp.”)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wagner and Spies teaches:
The robotic system of claim 5.
Wagner further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to extract from the image data an image of the target visual feature (see at least [0030]: “A stand 24 includes an attached perception unit 26 that is directed toward the conveyor from above the conveyor. The perception unit 26 may be, for example, a 2D or 3D camera, or a scanner such as a laser reflectivity scanner or other type of bar-code reader, or a radio frequency ID scanner. An image display system is also provided as shown at 28 for providing an image of the perception unit's view on a touch screen input device.”)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wagner and Spies teaches:
The robotic system of claim 6.
Wagner further discloses, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the image of the target visual feature to be displayed on a display device (see at least [0030]: “A stand 24 includes an attached perception unit 26 that is directed toward the conveyor from above the conveyor. The perception unit 26 may be, for example, a 2D or 3D camera, or a scanner such as a laser reflectivity scanner or other type of bar-code reader, or a radio frequency ID scanner. An image display system is also provided as shown at 28 for providing an image of the perception unit's view on a touch screen input device.”)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wagner and Spies teaches:
The robotic system of claim 7.
Wagner further discloses wherein the processor is configured to cause the image of the target visual feature to be displayed on a display device via a user interface in which a plurality of images, each associated with a respective target visual feature of a corresponding item, are displayed (see at least [0030]: “The perception unit 26 may be, for example, a 2D or 3D camera, or a scanner such as a laser reflectivity scanner or other type of bar-code reader, or a radio frequency ID scanner. An image display system is also provided as shown at 28 for providing an image of the perception unit's view on a touch screen input device. The robotic system 10 may further include the robotic environment and a target station 30 that includes a number of processing locations (e.g., sortation bins) 32 into which objects may be placed after identification. A central computing and control system 34 may communicate with the perception unit 26 and the image display system 28, as well as with the articulated arm 12 via wireless communication, or, in certain embodiments, the central computing and control system may be provided within the base section 20 of the articulated arm.”)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wagner and Spies teaches:
The robotic system of claim 1.
Wagner further discloses wherein the end effector comprises a suction type end effector (see at least [0059]: “For example, FIG. 13 shows a programmable motion system 350, e.g., a robotic system, with an articulated arm 352 and an end effector 354 that includes a vacuum cup 356 for engaging objects 358.”)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Wagner and Spies teaches:
The robotic system of claim 13.
Wagner further discloses wherein the processor is configured to use the end effector to grasp the item from the top (see at least Fig. 14A, in which the end effector grabs the object from the top.)
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wagner and Spies teaches:
The robotic system of claim 1.
Wagner further discloses, wherein the sensor is mounted in a fixed location (see at least [0031]: “… a fixed primary scanner operating above the incoming stream of objects…”)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Wagner and Spies teaches:
The robotic system of claim 1.
Wagner further discloses, wherein the sensor is mounted on one or more of a robotic arm, an end effector, or another movable element comprising the robotic system (see at least [0060]: “The end effector 402 also includes a sensor 404 that includes an attachment band 406 on the bellows, as well as a bracket 408 attached to magnetic field sensor 404, and a magnet 412 is mounted on the articulated arm 400.”)
Regarding claim 19, Wagner discloses:
A method, comprising:
receiving via a communication interface sensor data from a sensor in a workspace (see at least [0032]: “As noted, the robotic pick and place system may include a robotic arm equipped with sensors and computing, that when combined is assumed herein to exhibit the following capabilities…”)
using the sensor data to determine a location of a target visual feature on an item (see at least [0037]: “In addition to geometric information the system may learn the location of fiducial markers such as barcodes on the object, which can be used as indicator for a surface patch that is flat and impermeable, hence suitable for a suction cup.”)
and use the determined location to generate and implement a plan to use a robotic arm to move and place the item at a destination location at a prescribed orientation determined based at least in part on the determined location of the target visual feature on the item (see at least [0041]: “The robotic system may include a defined home or base location 84 to which each object may initially be brought upon acquisition from the bin (e.g., 56). In certain embodiments, the system may include a plurality of base locations, as well as a plurality of predetermined path portions associated with the plurality of base locations. The trajectories taken by the articulated arm of the robot system from the input bin to the base location 84 are constantly changing based in part, on the location of each object in the input bin, the orientation of the object in the input bin, and the shape, weight and other physical properties of the object to be acquired.”)
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, but Spies, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
including by rotating the item as needed to place the item at the destination location in the prescribed orientation in which the target visual feature is exposed to view from a vantage point with which the prescribed orientation is associated (See at least [0085-0090]: “Move the object from the corner to the center of the container (parameter: object pose, center of the container)->Pick up object (parameter: object pose)->Scan barcode (parameter: scanner location)->Store object (parameter: object destination) Special case 3: The object 113 is near the center of the container 115, but its barcode is not at the upper surface. Then, a reorientation is required compared to the nominal case: [0087] Pick up object (parameter: object pose)->Reorient object (parameter: object pose)->Pick up object (parameter: object pose)->Scan barcode (parameter: scanner location)->Store object (parameter: object destination) [0088] Special case 4: The object 113 is close to an edge or corner of the container 115, and the barcode is not on the upper surface. Then, a reorientation is required in comparison to special case 2: Move the object from the corner or from the edge to the center of the container (parameter: object pose, center of the container)->Pick up object (parameter: object pose)->Reorient object (parameter: object pose)->Pick up object->Scan barcode (parameter: scanner location)->Drop object (parameter: object destination)”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Wagner with the methods taught by Spies because as stated in the background section of Spies: “A robotic device, such as a robotic arm, that is intended to remove objects from a container should be able to adapt to various situations, e.g. starting conditions. For example, if an object is on the edge rather than in the center of a container, the robot should also be able to pick up the object. However, the robot can need to perform an additional action to this end, e.g. push the object to the center. Approaches are therefore required to control a robotic device that enables successful and efficient control for various situations.”
Regarding claim 20, Wagner discloses:
A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for:
receiving via a communication interface sensor data from a sensor in a workspace (see at least [0032]: “As noted, the robotic pick and place system may include a robotic arm equipped with sensors and computing, that when combined is assumed herein to exhibit the following capabilities…”)
using the sensor data to determine a location of a target visual feature on an item (see at least [0037]: “In addition to geometric information the system may learn the location of fiducial markers such as barcodes on the object, which can be used as indicator for a surface patch that is flat and impermeable, hence suitable for a suction cup.”)
and use the determined location to generate and implement a plan to use a robotic arm to move and place the item at a destination location at a prescribed orientation determined based at least in part on the determined location of the target visual feature on the item (see at least [0041]: “The robotic system may include a defined home or base location 84 to which each object may initially be brought upon acquisition from the bin (e.g., 56). In certain embodiments, the system may include a plurality of base locations, as well as a plurality of predetermined path portions associated with the plurality of base locations. The trajectories taken by the articulated arm of the robot system from the input bin to the base location 84 are constantly changing based in part, on the location of each object in the input bin, the orientation of the object in the input bin, and the shape, weight and other physical properties of the object to be acquired.”)
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, but Spies, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
including by rotating the item as needed to place the item at the destination location in the prescribed orientation in which the target visual feature is exposed to view from a vantage point with which the prescribed orientation is associated (See at least [0085-0090]: “Move the object from the corner to the center of the container (parameter: object pose, center of the container)->Pick up object (parameter: object pose)->Scan barcode (parameter: scanner location)->Store object (parameter: object destination) Special case 3: The object 113 is near the center of the container 115, but its barcode is not at the upper surface. Then, a reorientation is required compared to the nominal case: [0087] Pick up object (parameter: object pose)->Reorient object (parameter: object pose)->Pick up object (parameter: object pose)->Scan barcode (parameter: scanner location)->Store object (parameter: object destination) [0088] Special case 4: The object 113 is close to an edge or corner of the container 115, and the barcode is not on the upper surface. Then, a reorientation is required in comparison to special case 2: Move the object from the corner or from the edge to the center of the container (parameter: object pose, center of the container)->Pick up object (parameter: object pose)->Reorient object (parameter: object pose)->Pick up object->Scan barcode (parameter: scanner location)->Drop object (parameter: object destination)”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Wagner with the methods taught by Spies because as stated in the background section of Spies: “A robotic device, such as a robotic arm, that is intended to remove objects from a container should be able to adapt to various situations, e.g. starting conditions. For example, if an object is on the edge rather than in the center of a container, the robot should also be able to pick up the object. However, the robot can need to perform an additional action to this end, e.g. push the object to the center. Approaches are therefore required to control a robotic device that enables successful and efficient control for various situations.”
Claims 9-12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner and Spies in view of Sun et al. (US 20210122054 A1), hereinafter Sun.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference outside of the one year grace period, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wagner and Spies teaches the robotic system of claim 1.
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, but Sun, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine, based on the sensor data, that the target feature has not yet been detected and to change an orientation of the item within a field of view of the sensor (see at least [0128]: “Based on the package's orientation in the bulk pile from which the robot is picking, the robot might find a situation where the barcode actually faces down. In some embodiments, a robotic singulation system as disclosed herein may be used to flick or otherwise flip an item into a position in which the barcode or other label or routing information faces up. In some embodiments, the robot arm use its motions to flip the package by using controlled slipping due to gravity, if the end effector is pinch gripper (e.g., gripping at an end and letting the item begin to rotate via slippage/gravity before being release once the flipping motion has been initiated), or controlled suction release sequence on multiple suction cups and gravity to reorient a package (e.g., releasing suction on a cups at one end of the effector while still applying suction at the other end, to initiate rotation about an axis around which the item is to be flipped).”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Wagner with the method of re-orienting the object as taught by Sun because, as stated by Sun [0128]: “The challenges with picking objects from piles (which may be flowing) and placing them on to a singulating conveyor is that the singulation conveyor needs to associate a package barcode with each package in a conveyor belt slot. Based on the package's orientation in the bulk pile from which the robot is picking, the robot might find a situation where the barcode actually faces down.”
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wagner, Spies and Sun teaches the robotic system of claim 9.
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, but Sun, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is configured to change the orientation of the item within the field of view of the sensor at least in part by rotating the item about an axis associated with one or both of the item and the end effector (see at least [0128]: “Based on the package's orientation in the bulk pile from which the robot is picking, the robot might find a situation where the barcode actually faces down. In some embodiments, a robotic singulation system as disclosed herein may be used to flick or otherwise flip an item into a position in which the barcode or other label or routing information faces up. In some embodiments, the robot arm use its motions to flip the package by using controlled slipping due to gravity, if the end effector is pinch gripper (e.g., gripping at an end and letting the item begin to rotate via slippage/gravity before being release once the flipping motion has been initiated), or controlled suction release sequence on multiple suction cups and gravity to reorient a package (e.g., releasing suction on a cups at one end of the effector while still applying suction at the other end, to initiate rotation about an axis around which the item is to be flipped).”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Wagner with the method of re-orienting the object as taught by Sun because, as stated by Sun [0128]: “The challenges with picking objects from piles (which may be flowing) and placing them on to a singulating conveyor is that the singulation conveyor needs to associate a package barcode with each package in a conveyor belt slot. Based on the package's orientation in the bulk pile from which the robot is picking, the robot might find a situation where the barcode actually faces down.”
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wagner, Spies, and Sun teaches the robotic system of claim 10.
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, but Sun, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the axis comprises a vertical or other “z” axis (see at least [0128]: “Based on the package's orientation in the bulk pile from which the robot is picking, the robot might find a situation where the barcode actually faces down. In some embodiments, a robotic singulation system as disclosed herein may be used to flick or otherwise flip an item into a position in which the barcode or other label or routing information faces up. In some embodiments, the robot arm use its motions to flip the package by using controlled slipping due to gravity, if the end effector is pinch gripper (e.g., gripping at an end and letting the item begin to rotate via slippage/gravity before being release once the flipping motion has been initiated), or controlled suction release sequence on multiple suction cups and gravity to reorient a package (e.g., releasing suction on a cups at one end of the effector while still applying suction at the other end, to initiate rotation about an axis around which the item is to be flipped).”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Wagner with the method of re-orienting the object as taught by Sun because, as stated by Sun [0128]: “The challenges with picking objects from piles (which may be flowing) and placing them on to a singulating conveyor is that the singulation conveyor needs to associate a package barcode with each package in a conveyor belt slot. Based on the package's orientation in the bulk pile from which the robot is picking, the robot might find a situation where the barcode actually faces down.”
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wagner, Spies, and Sun teaches the robotic system of claim 9.
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, but Sun, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is configured to change the orientation of the item within the field of view of the sensor at least in part by placing the item in a buffer location, reorienting the item while placed in the buffer location, regrasping the item as reoriented in the buffer location, and moving the item back into the field of view of the sensor (see at least [0128]: “Based on the package's orientation in the bulk pile from which the robot is picking, the robot might find a situation where the barcode actually faces down. In some embodiments, a robotic singulation system as disclosed herein may be used to flick or otherwise flip an item into a position in which the barcode or other label or routing information faces up. In some embodiments, the robot arm use its motions to flip the package by using controlled slipping due to gravity, if the end effector is pinch gripper (e.g., gripping at an end and letting the item begin to rotate via slippage/gravity before being release once the flipping motion has been initiated), or controlled suction release sequence on multiple suction cups and gravity to reorient a package (e.g., releasing suction on a cups at one end of the effector while still applying suction at the other end, to initiate rotation about an axis around which the item is to be flipped).”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Wagner with the method of re-orienting the object as taught by Sun because, as stated by Sun [0128]: “The challenges with picking objects from piles (which may be flowing) and placing them on to a singulating conveyor is that the singulation conveyor needs to associate a package barcode with each package in a conveyor belt slot. Based on the package's orientation in the bulk pile from which the robot is picking, the robot might find a situation where the barcode actually faces down.”
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Wagner and Spies discloses the robotic system of claim 1.
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, but Sun teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine that the target visual feature has not been detected at any available orientation (see at least [0128]: “Based on the package's orientation in the bulk pile from which the robot is picking, the robot might find a situation where the barcode actually faces down. In some embodiments, a robotic singulation system as disclosed herein may be used to flick or otherwise flip an item into a position in which the barcode or other label or routing information faces up. In some embodiments, the robot arm use its motions to flip the package by using controlled slipping due to gravity, if the end effector is pinch gripper (e.g., gripping at an end and letting the item begin to rotate via slippage/gravity before being release once the flipping motion has been initiated), or controlled suction release sequence on multiple suction cups and gravity to reorient a package (e.g., releasing suction on a cups at one end of the effector while still applying suction at the other end, to initiate rotation about an axis around which the item is to be flipped).”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Wagner with the method of re-orienting the object as taught by Sun because, as stated by Sun [0128]: “The challenges with picking objects from piles (which may be flowing) and placing them on to a singulating conveyor is that the singulation conveyor needs to associate a package barcode with each package in a conveyor belt slot. Based on the package's orientation in the bulk pile from which the robot is picking, the robot might find a situation where the barcode actually faces down.”
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wagner, Spies and Sun teaches the robotic system of claim 15.
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, but Sun teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine that the target visual feature has not been detected at any available orientation (see at least [0064]: “Referring further to FIG. 2A, in the example shown system 200 further includes an on demand teleoperation device 218 usable by a human worker 220 to operate one or more of robotic arm 202, end effector 204, and conveyor 208 by teleoperation. In some embodiments, control computer 212 is configured to attempt to grasp and place items in a fully automated mode. However, if after attempting to operate in fully automated mode control computer 212 determines it has no (further) strategies available to grasp one or more items, in various embodiments control computer 212 sends an alert to obtain assistance from a human operator via teleoperation, e.g., by human operator 220 using teleoperation device 218.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Wagner with the method of requesting human assistance as taught by Sun because, as stated by Sun, some failures cannot be corrected by a robot. (See [0059]: “Failure that cannot be corrected by same or another robot…”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH NELESKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6064. The examiner can normally be reached 10 - 6.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/E.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights