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 .
Status of claims
The following claims have been rejected or allowed for the following reasons:
Claim(s) 1-9 is rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement/statements (IDS) were filed on 4/6/24 and 2/5/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Teruyuki (WO-2018139026-A1), in further view of Chitta (US 20170246744 A1), in further view of Garabini (NPL Wrapp-Up, A Dual-Arm Robot for Intralogistics 10/5/2020), in further view of Hayakawa (NPL A Dual-Arm Robot That Autonomously Lifts Up and Tumbles Heavy Plates Using Crane Pulley Blocks 10/27/2021).
Regarding claim 1 Teruyuki teaches A workpiece supply system comprising: a workpiece supply robot configured to be able to transport an uppermost workpiece from a workpiece group stacked formed by stacking a plurality of plate- shaped workpieces on a workpiece mounting table; (Teruyuki figure 1 depicts a robotic manipulator that is configure to work with a stack of flat objects.);
PNG
media_image1.png
482
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Teruyuki figure 1
And a robot control unit, wherein the workpiece supply robot includes a robotic hand for holding the uppermost workpiece by suctioning a surface of the uppermost workpiece, and (Teruyuki page 3 paragraph 3 reads “In the configuration example shown in FIG. 1, the processing machine 10 is a bending machine, and the workpiece holding robot 20 is a workpiece transfer robot that sucks or grips the workpiece W and transfers it to the bending machine.”);
a rectangle approximation process of approximating a shape of the workpiece so as to obtain a rectangle that contains the uppermost workpiece; (Teruyuki Page 4 paragraph 10 reads “In step S4, the area calculation unit 304 calculates the area of each rectangle circumscribing the labeled region (hereinafter, labeled region). The rectangle is an example of a circumscribed figure that circumscribes the labeling area. … The circumscribed figure is preferably a rectangle.”);
Teruyuki does not teach the robot control unit is configured to uppermost workpiece; nearest neighbor portion specifying process of specifying a side or a corner nearest to the holding position of the robotic hand specified by the holding position specifying process as a nearest neighbor portion, among a side or a corner of a rectangle that is obtained through approximation in the rectangle approximation process; a pivot center specifying process of specifying, as a pivot center, an opposed portion opposed to the nearest neighbor portion specified by the nearest neighbor portion specifying process; and a robotic hand control process of lifting the uppermost workpiece toward above while being turned around to separate the uppermost workpiece from the workpiece group around the opposed portion specified by the pivot center specifying process, and the opposed portion is a side or a corner of the rectangle opposed to the nearest neighbor portion.
Chitta in analogous art, teaches the robot control unit is configured to uppermost workpiece; (Chitta [0026] reads “Systems implemented as described herein enable a robot to correctly pick each box with a gripper centered at or near the physical center of a gripping face of the box and, in some cases with rectangular box faces, with the gripper aligned with the long axis of that face.”);
nearest neighbor portion specifying process of specifying a side or a corner nearest to the holding position of the robotic hand specified by the holding position specifying process as a nearest neighbor portion, among a side or a corner of a rectangle that is obtained through approximation in the rectangle approximation process; (Chitta [0039] reads “The system then chooses to move the Gripper 30 using the Robot 28 to the closest corner 40, overlapping the box 12 in such a computed manner to only overlap box 12 while not overlapping box 14. The system computes the minimal overlap needed to grasp the box on the corner area using the known smallest possible size of the boxes.” And [0043] reads “Referring to FIG. 9, the system fits a plane in the original Image 38 to the pixels corresponding to the Difference 54. This plane corresponds to the top face 16 of Box 12 in FIG. 1. The system computes the size of the top face of the Box 12 using this plane as shown in FIG. 10. That is, the new slice is projected onto 2D and a 2D boundary is identified, taking into account the fact that it is known that the object being lifted is a box, to fit the best rectangle to the boundary.”);
and the opposed portion is a side or a corner of the rectangle opposed to the nearest neighbor portion. (Chitta [0039] reads “The system then chooses to move the Gripper 30 using the Robot 28 to the closest corner 40, overlapping the box 12 in such a computed manner to only overlap box 12 while not overlapping box 14. The system computes the minimal overlap needed to grasp the box on the corner area using the known smallest possible size of the boxes.” And [0043] reads “Referring to FIG. 9, the system fits a plane in the original Image 38 to the pixels corresponding to the Difference 54. This plane corresponds to the top face 16 of Box 12 in FIG. 1. The system computes the size of the top face of the Box 12 using this plane as shown in FIG. 10. That is, the new slice is projected onto 2D and a 2D boundary is identified, taking into account the fact that it is known that the object being lifted is a box, to fit the best rectangle to the boundary.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Teruyuki with that of Chitta to include a method that would allow the robotic gripper to better understand where to grasp a target object. This would allow for the system to have better manipulation and control of the objects that it manipulated. (Chitta [0002] reads “Box-like objects constitute a large percentage of objects that need to be picked (i.e., removed from a pallet or holding container) in industrial, manufacturing, logistics, and commercial environments. Box-like objects are typically characterized by at least one substantially planar picking surface. Conventional robotic picking of boxes can only handle known sizes, numbers, and types of boxes arranged in a uniform manner on a structured pallet. Using mechanical fixtures, some current systems pre-position a pallet of boxes so that a robot can pick them from known pre-programmed locations. Any deviation from this known structure, either in the size of the box, the number of boxes, or the location of boxes results in failure of the system. Some computer-vision-based systems rely on the boxes having clean edges only at their boundaries and cannot deal with boxes that have advertising, printed characters, printed logos, pictures, color, or any other texture on them. Such boxes have visual edges on their faces—i.e., edges that do not correspond to an actual physical boundary of the box. Current computer-vision-based systems cannot distinguish the physical edges between two different boxes from other visual edges on the faces of boxes, causing these systems to misjudge the size and position of the box(es). Picking and moving the box where the system has misjudged its size and location may either cause the box to slip from the grasp of the robot or may cause the robot to pick two or more boxes where it should have picked only one.”);
Teruyuki/Chitta does not teach a pivot center specifying process of specifying, as a pivot center, an opposed portion opposed to the nearest neighbor portion specified by the nearest neighbor portion specifying process; and a robotic hand control process of lifting the uppermost workpiece toward above while being turned around to separate the uppermost workpiece from the workpiece group around the opposed portion specified by the pivot center specifying process.
Garabini in analogous art, teaches a pivot center specifying process of specifying, as a pivot center, an opposed portion opposed to the nearest neighbor portion specified by the nearest neighbor portion specifying process; (Wrap-Up page 9 paragraph 7 reads “Horizontal rotation: One end effector is used to gently tilt the object about a horizontal axis. This can be achieved in two different cases: 1) about a horizontal axis on the front-bottom edge of the bounding box enveloping the object [see Figure 6(b)] and 2) about an axis on the back-bottom edge of a bounding box enveloping the object [see Figure 6(d)].”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Teruyuki/Chitta with that of Garabini to include a method for pivoting an object that is to be manipulated. This would allow the system to handle items that are packed very close to other or items that require unique methods of manipulation. (Garabini page 4 paragraph 5 reads “● Boxes are often very close to each other, and the two opposite sides, which are the most desirable for a reliable and robust grasp, are usually not easily accessible. Hence, to be properly handled, such boxes should first be moved to guarantee that two opposite faces are accessible and then picked. ● Some items do not have a top surface, or the top surface may not be suitable for grasping the object. These objects cannot be grasped with vacuum grippers. ● The bottom side of some objects is recessed under the upper side of the objects that they lie under—or, more generally, they cannot slide. This means that the objects can translate only along the vertical direction or rotate about a horizontal axis”);
Teruyuki/Chitta/Garabini does not teach and a robotic hand control process of separating the uppermost workpiece lifting the uppermost workpiece toward above while being turned around to separate the uppermost workpiece from the workpiece group around the opposed portion specified by the pivot center specifying process.
Hayakawa in analogous art, teaches and a robotic hand control process of separating the uppermost workpiece lifting the uppermost workpiece toward above while being turned around to separate the uppermost workpiece from the workpiece group around the opposed portion specified by the pivot center specifying process, (Hayakawa figure 3 depicts a robotic system that is pivoting a plate object as it lifts it vertically.);
PNG
media_image2.png
408
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hayakawa figure 3
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Teruyuki/Chitta/Garabini with that Hayakawa to include a method that would allow the system to lift objects vertically while they are being rotated. This would give the system the ability to manipulate different types of loads. (Hayakawa abstract reads “This paper proposes a combined planning and optimization method that enables a dual-arm robot to lift up and flip heavy plates using crane pulley blocks. The problem is motivated by the low payload of modern collaborative robots.“);
Regarding claim 3 Teruyuki/Chitta/Garabini/Hayakawa teaches The workpiece supply system according to claim 1, wherein the pivot center specifying process specifies, as the pivot center, the opposed portion opposed to a longest nearest neighbor portion if two or more nearest neighbor portions are specified in the nearest neighbor portion specifying process. (Garabini page 10 paragraph 3 reads “For each object, the choice of the strategy was made based on its shape and on how the objects are stacked on the pallet. Each motion primitive is defined as a set of Cartesian waypoints for the two end effectors, expressed with respect to a frame placed on the object. The definition of waypoints that allows for a correct manipulation of the object, e.g., to rotate or tilt it to produce enough room for positioning an end effector as in Figure 6(c) or (d), is the result of simulations and real experiments on the objects. Thus, they depend on the physical properties of the end effectors and the objects. Once the pose of the object is retrieved and the correct primitive is selected, the waypoints expressed in the object-fixed frame are transformed into the world frame.” This description paired with figure 6 below show how the system may choose the nearest edge to be the rotation axis of the item to be manipulated.);
PNG
media_image3.png
213
459
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Garabini Figure 6
Regarding claim 4 Teruyuki/Chitta/Garabini/Hayakawa teaches The workpiece supply system according to claim 3, wherein the pivot center specifying process specifies, as the pivot center, the opposed portion opposed to the longest nearest neighbor portion with an obstacle in a vicinity if there are two or more longest nearest neighbor portions. (Garabini page 10 paragraph 3 reads “For each object, the choice of the strategy was made based on its shape and on how the objects are stacked on the pallet. Each motion primitive is defined as a set of Cartesian waypoints for the two end effectors, expressed with respect to a frame placed on the object. The definition of waypoints that allows for a correct manipulation of the object, e.g., to rotate or tilt it to produce enough room for positioning an end effector as in Figure 6(c) or (d), is the result of simulations and real experiments on the objects. Thus, they depend on the physical properties of the end effectors and the objects. Once the pose of the object is retrieved and the correct primitive is selected, the waypoints expressed in the object-fixed frame are transformed into the world frame.” This description paired with figure 6 below show how the system may choose the nearest edge to be the rotation axis of the item to be manipulated.);
PNG
media_image3.png
213
459
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Garabini Figure 6
Regarding claim 8 Teruyuki teaches A workpiece supply method comprising: a holding position specifying process of specifying a holding position of a robotic hand with respect to an uppermost-a workpiece in a workpiece group formed by stacking a plurality of plate-shaped workpieces on a workpiece mounting table; (Teruyuki figure 1 depicts a robotic manipulator that is configure to work with a stack of flat objects.);
PNG
media_image1.png
482
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Teruyuki figure 1
a rectangle approximation process of approximating a shape of the workpiece so as to obtain a rectangle that contains the uppermost workpiece; (Teruyuki Page 4 paragraph 10 reads “In step S4, the area calculation unit 304 calculates the area of each rectangle circumscribing the labeled region (hereinafter, labeled region). The rectangle is an example of a circumscribed figure that circumscribes the labeling area. … The circumscribed figure is preferably a rectangle.”);
wherein the robotic hand is configured to hold the uppermost workpiece by suctioning a surface of the uppermost workpiece, (Teruyuki page 3 paragraph 3 reads “In the configuration example shown in FIG. 1, the processing machine 10 is a bending machine, and the workpiece holding robot 20 is a workpiece transfer robot that sucks or grips the workpiece W and transfers it to the bending machine.”);
Teruyuki does not teach a nearest neighbor portion specifying process of specifying a side or a corner- portion of the workpiece nearest to the holding position of the robotic hand specified by the holding position specifying process as a nearest neighbor portion, among a side or a corner of a rectangle that is obtained through approximation in the rectangle approximation process; a pivot center specifying process of specifying, as a pivot center, an opposed portion opposed to the nearest neighbor portion specified by the nearest neighbor portion specifying process; and a robotic hand control process of lifting the uppermost workpiece toward above while being turned around to separate separating an the uppermost workpiece from a-the workpiece group around the opposed portion specified by the pivot center specifying process, and the opposed portion is a side or a corner of the rectangle opposed to the nearest neighbor portion.
Chitta in analogous art, teaches a nearest neighbor portion specifying process of specifying a side or a corner- portion of the workpiece nearest to the holding position of the robotic hand specified by the holding position specifying process as a nearest neighbor portion, among a side or a corner of a rectangle that is obtained through approximation in the rectangle approximation process; (Chitta [0039] reads “The system then chooses to move the Gripper 30 using the Robot 28 to the closest corner 40, overlapping the box 12 in such a computed manner to only overlap box 12 while not overlapping box 14. The system computes the minimal overlap needed to grasp the box on the corner area using the known smallest possible size of the boxes.” And [0043] reads “Referring to FIG. 9, the system fits a plane in the original Image 38 to the pixels corresponding to the Difference 54. This plane corresponds to the top face 16 of Box 12 in FIG. 1. The system computes the size of the top face of the Box 12 using this plane as shown in FIG. 10. That is, the new slice is projected onto 2D and a 2D boundary is identified, taking into account the fact that it is known that the object being lifted is a box, to fit the best rectangle to the boundary.”);
and the opposed portion is a side or a corner of the rectangle opposed to the nearest neighbor portion. (Chitta [0039] reads “The system then chooses to move the Gripper 30 using the Robot 28 to the closest corner 40, overlapping the box 12 in such a computed manner to only overlap box 12 while not overlapping box 14. The system computes the minimal overlap needed to grasp the box on the corner area using the known smallest possible size of the boxes.” And [0043] reads “Referring to FIG. 9, the system fits a plane in the original Image 38 to the pixels corresponding to the Difference 54. This plane corresponds to the top face 16 of Box 12 in FIG. 1. The system computes the size of the top face of the Box 12 using this plane as shown in FIG. 10. That is, the new slice is projected onto 2D and a 2D boundary is identified, taking into account the fact that it is known that the object being lifted is a box, to fit the best rectangle to the boundary.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Teruyuki with that of Chitta to include a method that would allow the robotic gripper to better understand where to grasp a target object. This would allow for the system to have better manipulation and control of the objects that it manipulated. (Chitta [0002] reads “Box-like objects constitute a large percentage of objects that need to be picked (i.e., removed from a pallet or holding container) in industrial, manufacturing, logistics, and commercial environments. Box-like objects are typically characterized by at least one substantially planar picking surface. Conventional robotic picking of boxes can only handle known sizes, numbers, and types of boxes arranged in a uniform manner on a structured pallet. Using mechanical fixtures, some current systems pre-position a pallet of boxes so that a robot can pick them from known pre-programmed locations. Any deviation from this known structure, either in the size of the box, the number of boxes, or the location of boxes results in failure of the system. Some computer-vision-based systems rely on the boxes having clean edges only at their boundaries and cannot deal with boxes that have advertising, printed characters, printed logos, pictures, color, or any other texture on them. Such boxes have visual edges on their faces—i.e., edges that do not correspond to an actual physical boundary of the box. Current computer-vision-based systems cannot distinguish the physical edges between two different boxes from other visual edges on the faces of boxes, causing these systems to misjudge the size and position of the box(es). Picking and moving the box where the system has misjudged its size and location may either cause the box to slip from the grasp of the robot or may cause the robot to pick two or more boxes where it should have picked only one.”);
Teruyuki/Chitta does not teach a pivot center specifying process of specifying, as a pivot center, an opposed portion opposed to the nearest neighbor portion specified by the nearest neighbor portion specifying process; and a robotic hand control process of lifting the uppermost workpiece toward above while being turned around to separate separating an the uppermost workpiece from a-the workpiece group around the opposed portion specified by the pivot center specifying process.
Garabini in analogous art, teaches a pivot center specifying process of specifying, as a pivot center, an opposed portion opposed to the nearest neighbor portion specified by the nearest neighbor portion specifying process; (Wrap-Up page 9 paragraph 7 reads “Horizontal rotation: One end effector is used to gently tilt the object about a horizontal axis. This can be achieved in two different cases: 1) about a horizontal axis on the front-bottom edge of the bounding box enveloping the object [see Figure 6(b)] and 2) about an axis on the back-bottom edge of a bounding box enveloping the object [see Figure 6(d)].”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Teruyuki/Chitta with that of Garabini to include a method for pivoting an object that is to be manipulated. This would allow the system to handle items that are packed very close to other or items that require unique methods of manipulation. (Garabini page 4 paragraph 5 reads “● Boxes are often very close to each other, and the two opposite sides, which are the most desirable for a reliable and robust grasp, are usually not easily accessible. Hence, to be properly handled, such boxes should first be moved to guarantee that two opposite faces are accessible and then picked. ● Some items do not have a top surface, or the top surface may not be suitable for grasping the object. These objects cannot be grasped with vacuum grippers. ● The bottom side of some objects is recessed under the upper side of the objects that they lie under—or, more generally, they cannot slide. This means that the objects can translate only along the vertical direction or rotate about a horizontal axis”);
Teruyuki/Chitta/Garabini does not teach and a robotic hand control process of lifting the uppermost workpiece toward above while being turned around to separate separating an the uppermost workpiece from a-the workpiece group around the opposed portion specified by the pivot center specifying process.
Hayakawa in analogous art, teaches and a robotic hand control process of lifting the uppermost workpiece toward above while being turned around to separate separating an the uppermost workpiece from a-the workpiece group around the opposed portion specified by the pivot center specifying process, (Hayakawa figure 3 depicts a robotic system that is pivoting a plate object as it lifts it vertically.);
PNG
media_image2.png
408
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hayakawa figure 3
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Teruyuki/Chitta/Garabini with that Hayakawa to include a method that would allow the system to lift objects vertically while they are being rotated. This would give the system the ability to manipulate different types of loads. (Hayakawa abstract reads “This paper proposes a combined planning and optimization method that enables a dual-arm robot to lift up and flip heavy plates using crane pulley blocks. The problem is motivated by the low payload of modern collaborative robots.“);
Regarding claim 9 Teruyuki teaches A workpiece supply program stored on a non- transitory computer readable medium for causing non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed causes a robot control unit to execute: a holding position specifying process of specifying a holding position of a robotic hand with respect to a-an uppermost workpiece in a workpiece group formed by stacking a plurality of plate-shaped workpieces on a workpiece mounting table; (Teruyuki figure 1 depicts a robotic manipulator that is configure to work with a stack of flat objects.);
PNG
media_image1.png
482
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Teruyuki figure 1
a rectangle approximation process of approximating a shape of the workpiece so as to obtain a rectangle that contains the uppermost workpiece; (Teruyuki Page 4 paragraph 10 reads “In step S4, the area calculation unit 304 calculates the area of each rectangle circumscribing the labeled region (hereinafter, labeled region). The rectangle is an example of a circumscribed figure that circumscribes the labeling area. … The circumscribed figure is preferably a rectangle.”);
wherein the robotic hand is configured to hold the uppermost workpiece by suctioning a surface of the uppermost workpiece, (Teruyuki page 3 paragraph 3 reads “In the configuration example shown in FIG. 1, the processing machine 10 is a bending machine, and the workpiece holding robot 20 is a workpiece transfer robot that sucks or grips the workpiece W and transfers it to the bending machine.”);
Teruyuki does not teach a nearest neighbor portion specifying process of specifying a portion of the workpiece a side or a corner nearest to the holding position of the robotic hand specified by the holding position specifying process as a nearest neighbor portion, among a side or a corner of a rectangle that is obtained through the approximation in the rectangle approximation process; a pivot center specifying process of specifying, as a pivot center, an opposed portion opposed to the nearest neighbor portion specified by the nearest neighbor portion specifying process; and a robotic hand control process of separating lifting the uppermost workpiece_ toward above while being turned around to separate the uppermost workpiece from the workpiece group around the opposed portion specified by the pivot center specifying process, and the opposed portion is a side or a corner of the rectangle opposed to the nearest neighbor portion.
Chitta in analogous art, teaches a nearest neighbor portion specifying process of specifying a portion of the workpiece a side or a corner nearest to the holding position of the robotic hand specified by the holding position specifying process as a nearest neighbor portion, among a side or a corner of a rectangle that is obtained through the approximation in the rectangle approximation process; (Chitta [0039] reads “The system then chooses to move the Gripper 30 using the Robot 28 to the closest corner 40, overlapping the box 12 in such a computed manner to only overlap box 12 while not overlapping box 14. The system computes the minimal overlap needed to grasp the box on the corner area using the known smallest possible size of the boxes.” And [0043] reads “Referring to FIG. 9, the system fits a plane in the original Image 38 to the pixels corresponding to the Difference 54. This plane corresponds to the top face 16 of Box 12 in FIG. 1. The system computes the size of the top face of the Box 12 using this plane as shown in FIG. 10. That is, the new slice is projected onto 2D and a 2D boundary is identified, taking into account the fact that it is known that the object being lifted is a box, to fit the best rectangle to the boundary.”);
and the opposed portion is a side or a corner of the rectangle opposed to the nearest neighbor portion. (Chitta [0039] reads “The system then chooses to move the Gripper 30 using the Robot 28 to the closest corner 40, overlapping the box 12 in such a computed manner to only overlap box 12 while not overlapping box 14. The system computes the minimal overlap needed to grasp the box on the corner area using the known smallest possible size of the boxes.” And [0043] reads “Referring to FIG. 9, the system fits a plane in the original Image 38 to the pixels corresponding to the Difference 54. This plane corresponds to the top face 16 of Box 12 in FIG. 1. The system computes the size of the top face of the Box 12 using this plane as shown in FIG. 10. That is, the new slice is projected onto 2D and a 2D boundary is identified, taking into account the fact that it is known that the object being lifted is a box, to fit the best rectangle to the boundary.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Teruyuki with that of Chitta to include a method that would allow the robotic gripper to better understand where to grasp a target object. This would allow for the system to have better manipulation and control of the objects that it manipulated. (Chitta [0002] reads “Box-like objects constitute a large percentage of objects that need to be picked (i.e., removed from a pallet or holding container) in industrial, manufacturing, logistics, and commercial environments. Box-like objects are typically characterized by at least one substantially planar picking surface. Conventional robotic picking of boxes can only handle known sizes, numbers, and types of boxes arranged in a uniform manner on a structured pallet. Using mechanical fixtures, some current systems pre-position a pallet of boxes so that a robot can pick them from known pre-programmed locations. Any deviation from this known structure, either in the size of the box, the number of boxes, or the location of boxes results in failure of the system. Some computer-vision-based systems rely on the boxes having clean edges only at their boundaries and cannot deal with boxes that have advertising, printed characters, printed logos, pictures, color, or any other texture on them. Such boxes have visual edges on their faces—i.e., edges that do not correspond to an actual physical boundary of the box. Current computer-vision-based systems cannot distinguish the physical edges between two different boxes from other visual edges on the faces of boxes, causing these systems to misjudge the size and position of the box(es). Picking and moving the box where the system has misjudged its size and location may either cause the box to slip from the grasp of the robot or may cause the robot to pick two or more boxes where it should have picked only one.”);
Teruyuki/Chitta does not teach a pivot center specifying process of specifying, as a pivot center, an opposed portion opposed to the nearest neighbor portion specified by the nearest neighbor portion specifying process; and a robotic hand control process of separating lifting the uppermost workpiece_ toward above while being turned around to separate the uppermost workpiece from the workpiece group around the opposed portion specified by the pivot center specifying process.
Garabini in analogous art, teaches a pivot center specifying process of specifying, as a pivot center, an opposed portion opposed to the nearest neighbor portion specified by the nearest neighbor portion specifying process; (Garabini page 9 paragraph 7 reads “Horizontal rotation: One end effector is used to gently tilt the object about a horizontal axis. This can be achieved in two different cases: 1) about a horizontal axis on the front-bottom edge of the bounding box enveloping the object [see Figure 6(b)] and 2) about an axis on the back-bottom edge of a bounding box enveloping the object [see Figure 6(d)].”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Teruyuki/Chitta with that of Garabini to include a method for pivoting an object that is to be manipulated. This would allow the system to handle items that are packed very close to other or items that require unique methods of manipulation. (Garabini page 4 paragraph 5 reads “● Boxes are often very close to each other, and the two opposite sides, which are the most desirable for a reliable and robust grasp, are usually not easily accessible. Hence, to be properly handled, such boxes should first be moved to guarantee that two opposite faces are accessible and then picked. ● Some items do not have a top surface, or the top surface may not be suitable for grasping the object. These objects cannot be grasped with vacuum grippers. ● The bottom side of some objects is recessed under the upper side of the objects that they lie under—or, more generally, they cannot slide. This means that the objects can translate only along the vertical direction or rotate about a horizontal axis”);
Teruyuki/Chitta/Garabini does not teach and a robotic hand control process of separating lifting the uppermost workpiece toward above while being turned around to separate the uppermost workpiece from the workpiece group around the opposed portion specified by the pivot center specifying process.
Hayakawa in analogous art, teaches and a robotic hand control process of separating lifting the uppermost workpiece_ toward above while being turned around to separate the uppermost workpiece from the workpiece group around the opposed portion specified by the pivot center specifying process, (Hayakawa figure 3 depicts a robotic system that is pivoting a plate object as it lifts it vertically.);
PNG
media_image2.png
408
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hayakawa figure 3
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Teruyuki/Chitta/Garabini with that Hayakawa to include a method that would allow the system to lift objects vertically while they are being rotated. This would give the system the ability to manipulate different types of loads. (Hayakawa abstract reads “This paper proposes a combined planning and optimization method that enables a dual-arm robot to lift up and flip heavy plates using crane pulley blocks. The problem is motivated by the low payload of modern collaborative robots.“);
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Teruyuki/Chitta/Garabini/Hayakawa, in further view of Neville (US 20200306964 A1).
Regarding claim 7 Teruyuki/Chitta/Garabini/Hayakawa teaches The workpiece supply system according to claim 1, and in a state in which the uppermost workpiece is lifted (Hayakawa figure 3 depicts a robotic system that is pivoting a plate object as it lifts it vertically.);
PNG
media_image2.png
408
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hayakawa figure 3
while being turned around the opposed portion of the uppermost workpiece. (Garabini figure 6 depicts the process of turning a workpiece around while grasping it.);
PNG
media_image3.png
213
459
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Garabini Figure 6
Teruyuki/Chitta/Garabini/Hayakawa does not teach wherein the robotic hand control process is configured to hold the uppermost workpiece for a predetermined standby time.
Neville in analogous art, teaches wherein the robotic hand control process is configured to hold the uppermost workpiece for a predetermined standby time (Neville [0006-0007] reads “Prior to satisfying the threshold first alignment distance or the threshold second alignment distance, the method may include determining that the box has moved in the corresponding one of the first direction or the second direction for a threshold period. In some configurations, positioning the box at the initial position includes holding the box above the target box location without contacting an adjacent box. Releasing the box from the robot may cause the box to abut against one or more adjacent boxes.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Teruyuki/Chitta/Garabini/Hayakawa with that of Neville to include a method for insuring a tight grasp on an item. This would allow the system to better handle a range of items. (Neville [0003] reads “Robots may be manipulators that are physically anchored (e.g., industrial robotic arms), mobile robots that move throughout an environment (e.g., using legs, wheels, or traction based mechanisms), or some combination of a manipulator and a mobile robot. Robots are utilized in a variety of industries including, for example, manufacturing, transportation, hazardous environments, exploration, and healthcare. Each of these industries includes or relies on some degree of logistics and/or interaction with package goods. As such, the ability to palletize boxes may enhance a robot's functionality and provide additional benefits to these industries.”);
Response to arguments
Applicant argues <Independent claim 1, as representative, has been amended to specify that the workpiece is plate-shaped and the robotic hand holds the surface of the uppermost workpiece by suction.> [page 6 fourth paragraph]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Teruyuki is relied upon for the physical gripper that is used for manipulating the item and clearly teaches a gripper that can “Sucks” to grip the workpiece. (Teruyuki page 3 paragraph 3 reads “In the configuration example shown in FIG. 1, the processing machine 10 is a bending machine, and the workpiece holding robot 20 is a workpiece transfer robot that sucks or grips the workpiece W and transfers it to the bending machine.”); Therefore, the combination teaches the claimed invention.
Applicant argues <In contrast, Chitta targets box-shaped workpieces, so there is no concern regarding two or more workpieces being lifted simultaneously when a workpiece is suctioned. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would not have had any rational basis to adopt the rectangle approximation process, the nearest neighbor portion specifying process, the pivot center specifying process, and the robotic hand control process, as claimed. > [page 7 spanning paragraph]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Chitta teaches taking a flat image and further processing the image. Therefore the teachings of Chitta could be used for items of flat geometry. (Chitta [0032] reads “It should be noted that, despite any references to particular pallet geometry, the system could be applied to picking from any type of open container or open flat surface including but not limited to pallets, large boxes, 3 sided cages, shipping containers, bins or the back of trucks, vans, flat platforms, etc.”); Furthermore the pivot center specifying process, and the robotic hand control process are not explicitly only taught be Chitta. The pivot center specifying process is taught by Garabini and the robotic hand control process is taught by the combination of multiple sources as described in detail in the rejection above. Therefore, the combination teaches the claimed invention.
Applicant argues <Moreover, while Chitta holds the workpiece by suction using a gripper, Garabini grips the workpiece using two robotic hands. Accordingly, since the methods of holding the workpiece differ between Chitta and Garabini, one having ordinary skill in the art would have had no rational basis to modify Chitta with Garabini. > [page 7 first paragraph]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Chitta is only relied upon for some sensing, control and computations relating to how the robotic system is used to unload materials. Chitta even discusses that the robotic gripper could be a different gripper that would be more akin to the gripper that Garabini uses. (Garabini [0031] reads “It should be noted that, despite any references to particular grippers, the system could be applied to robots with different types of grippers, including but not limited to vacuum grippers, electrostatic grippers, two fingered parallel jaw grippers, robot hands with a plurality of fingers, etc.”); Therefore, the combination teaches the claimed invention.
Other references not Cited
Throughout examination other references were found that could read onto the prior art. Though these references were not used in this examination they could be used in future examination and could read on the contents of the current disclosure. These references are, NAGATSUKA (US 20090069939 A1); Lutz (US 9682481 B2); LEHMANN (US 9315344 B1);
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6228. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270 - 5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658