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.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC 119 (a)-(d) to application JP2023-103527 filed 06/23/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. As such, the effective filing date of the application is 06/21/2024.
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
Claims 1-20 are now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doke et al. (US 20070162174 A1), hereinafter Doke.
Regarding claim 1, Doke discloses:
A robot control system, comprising:
a robot configured to hold a cutter (see at least Figures 4A-5B);
and circuitry configured to: control the robot so that the robot cuts a packaging material with a blade of the cutter (see at least Fig. 6)
and control the robot so that the blade is oriented more toward an outer side of the packaging material when the robot cuts a face of the packaging material with the blade than when the robot cuts a corner of the packaging material with the blade (see at least [0060]: “The four-edged blade 120 of the present embodiment does not require the head 110 to be rotated at each corner of the box. Instead, the robot moves the head 110 along a substantially straight path from point A to point B as one edge of the blade 120 slices the side of the box. At the corner of the box, the robot moves the head 110 to round the corner, and the next edge of the blade 120 is already in position to cut the next side of the box without the need to rotate the cutting head 110. The robot then moves the head 110 along a substantially straight path from point B to point C as this second edge of the blade 120 slices the adjacent side of the box. This can be repeated for all sides of the box. Because the path of the cutting head 100 is rounded at the corner of the box, the robot can maintain an almost constant speed as it moves around the box. This can decrease the time it takes for the apparatus to cut a box.”)
Regarding claim 2, Doke discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to control the robot to cause the blade to enter the corner of the packaging material, orient the blade toward an outer side of the packaging material, and cut the face of the packaging material with the blade (see at least [0060]: “The four-edged blade 120 of the present embodiment does not require the head 110 to be rotated at each corner of the box. Instead, the robot moves the head 110 along a substantially straight path from point A to point B as one edge of the blade 120 slices the side of the box. At the corner of the box, the robot moves the head 110 to round the corner, and the next edge of the blade 120 is already in position to cut the next side of the box without the need to rotate the cutting head 110. The robot then moves the head 110 along a substantially straight path from point B to point C as this second edge of the blade 120 slices the adjacent side of the box. This can be repeated for all sides of the box. Because the path of the cutting head 100 is rounded at the corner of the box, the robot can maintain an almost constant speed as it moves around the box. This can decrease the time it takes for the apparatus to cut a box.”)
Regarding claim 3, Doke discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 1, wherein the cutter includes a body including the blade, and a tip, and wherein the circuitry is configured to change an orientation of the blade so that the tip is arranged between a content of the packaging material and the body (see at least Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 4, Doke discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 1, wherein the blade is arranged at one edge of the cutter, wherein the one edge is sharper than another edge of the cutter, and wherein the circuitry is configured to change an orientation of the blade so that the another edge is arranged between a content of the packaging material and the one edge (see at least Figures 4A-5B)
Regarding claim 5, Doke discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 1, wherein the robot is configured to hold a camera, wherein the circuitry is configured to: recognize a shape of the packaging material based on the camera, and control the robot so that the robot cuts below a bulge on a side face of the packaging material with the blade based on the shape (see at least [0066]: “In one embodiment of the box cutting apparatus, a camera (not shown) can be mounted in a position adjacent the laser sensor 56 shown in FIGS. 2A-2C. The camera can have a view angle looking downward at a box and can obtain a profile of the sides of the box. From the profile, the controller 40 can use recognition software to develop a path for the cutting head 100 that can accommodate possible dents or bulges in the box. According to this technique, the robot 80 can move the cutting head 100 along a path that would attempt to cut all of the surfaces of the box even if they include dents or bulges. As a similar alternative, the box cutting apparatus 10 can include additional laser sensors (not shown) to scan the perimeter of the box and determine the box's side profile to develop a cutting path.”)
Regarding claim 6, Doke discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 1, wherein the robot is configured to hold a camera, wherein the circuitry is configured to: recognize a dent of the packaging material based on the camera, and control the robot so that the robot cuts a position corresponding to the dent with the blade (see at least [0066]: “In one embodiment of the box cutting apparatus, a camera (not shown) can be mounted in a position adjacent the laser sensor 56 shown in FIGS. 2A-2C. The camera can have a view angle looking downward at a box and can obtain a profile of the sides of the box. From the profile, the controller 40 can use recognition software to develop a path for the cutting head 100 that can accommodate possible dents or bulges in the box. According to this technique, the robot 80 can move the cutting head 100 along a path that would attempt to cut all of the surfaces of the box even if they include dents or bulges. As a similar alternative, the box cutting apparatus 10 can include additional laser sensors (not shown) to scan the perimeter of the box and determine the box's side profile to develop a cutting path.”)
Regarding claim 7, Doke discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to control the robot so that a speed of the cutter changes between when the robot cuts the face of the packaging material with the blade and when the robot cuts the corner of the packaging material with the blade (see at least [0060]: “The four-edged blade 120 of the present embodiment does not require the head 110 to be rotated at each corner of the box. Instead, the robot moves the head 110 along a substantially straight path from point A to point B as one edge of the blade 120 slices the side of the box. At the corner of the box, the robot moves the head 110 to round the corner, and the next edge of the blade 120 is already in position to cut the next side of the box without the need to rotate the cutting head 110. The robot then moves the head 110 along a substantially straight path from point B to point C as this second edge of the blade 120 slices the adjacent side of the box. This can be repeated for all sides of the box. Because the path of the cutting head 100 is rounded at the corner of the box, the robot can maintain an almost constant speed as it moves around the box. This can decrease the time it takes for the apparatus to cut a box.”)
Regarding claim 9, Doke discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to: identify a property of the packaging material, and control the robot so that an orientation of the blade changes based on the property (see at least [0060]: “The four-edged blade 120 of the present embodiment does not require the head 110 to be rotated at each corner of the box. Instead, the robot moves the head 110 along a substantially straight path from point A to point B as one edge of the blade 120 slices the side of the box. At the corner of the box, the robot moves the head 110 to round the corner, and the next edge of the blade 120 is already in position to cut the next side of the box without the need to rotate the cutting head 110. The robot then moves the head 110 along a substantially straight path from point B to point C as this second edge of the blade 120 slices the adjacent side of the box. This can be repeated for all sides of the box. Because the path of the cutting head 100 is rounded at the corner of the box, the robot can maintain an almost constant speed as it moves around the box. This can decrease the time it takes for the apparatus to cut a box.”)
Regarding claim 10, Doke discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to: identify a type of a content of the packaging material, and control the robot so that an orientation of the blade changes based on the type (see at least [0075]: “In yet another embodiment, the automated box opening apparatus 300 can be coupled to an imaging system 370, such as an X-ray scanner or other device known in the art, to image the contents of the boxes. The imaging system 370 can be used for security purposes. In addition, the imaging system 370 can provide information about the contents of the boxes and the location of the contents in the boxes. The controller 340 can then perform image processing of the image information from the system 370 and can derive a cutting pattern or profile for the cutting head 344 that takes the location of the box's contents into consideration.”)
Regarding claim 13, Doke discloses:
A method of controlling a robot configured to hold a cutter so that the robot cuts a packaging material with a blade of the cutter (see at least Figures 4A-5B);
the method comprising controlling the robot so that the blade is oriented more toward an outer side of the packaging material when the robot cuts a face of the packaging material with the blade than when the robot cuts a corner of the packaging material with the blade (see at least [0060]: “The four-edged blade 120 of the present embodiment does not require the head 110 to be rotated at each corner of the box. Instead, the robot moves the head 110 along a substantially straight path from point A to point B as one edge of the blade 120 slices the side of the box. At the corner of the box, the robot moves the head 110 to round the corner, and the next edge of the blade 120 is already in position to cut the next side of the box without the need to rotate the cutting head 110. The robot then moves the head 110 along a substantially straight path from point B to point C as this second edge of the blade 120 slices the adjacent side of the box. This can be repeated for all sides of the box. Because the path of the cutting head 100 is rounded at the corner of the box, the robot can maintain an almost constant speed as it moves around the box. This can decrease the time it takes for the apparatus to cut a box.”)
Regarding claim 14, Doke discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable information storage medium storing a program that causes a robot controller, the robot controller controlling a robot configured to hold a cutter so that the robot cuts a packaging material with a blade of the cutter (see at least Figures 4A-5B) to:
control the robot so that the blade is oriented more toward an outer side of the packaging material when the robot cuts a face of the packaging material with the blade than when the robot cuts a corner of the packaging material with the blade (see at least [0060]: “The four-edged blade 120 of the present embodiment does not require the head 110 to be rotated at each corner of the box. Instead, the robot moves the head 110 along a substantially straight path from point A to point B as one edge of the blade 120 slices the side of the box. At the corner of the box, the robot moves the head 110 to round the corner, and the next edge of the blade 120 is already in position to cut the next side of the box without the need to rotate the cutting head 110. The robot then moves the head 110 along a substantially straight path from point B to point C as this second edge of the blade 120 slices the adjacent side of the box. This can be repeated for all sides of the box. Because the path of the cutting head 100 is rounded at the corner of the box, the robot can maintain an almost constant speed as it moves around the box. This can decrease the time it takes for the apparatus to cut a box.”)
Regarding claim 15, Doke discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 1, wherein the robot control system is configured to contact a bottom face of the packaging material, and to fix at least a part in contact with the bottom face (see at least Fig. 1A and 1B. See further [0003]: “In one embodiment of the present disclosure, a box processing apparatus includes a conveyor, a programmable motion device, and a controller. The conveyor preferably includes actuatable rollers and defines at least two separately operable zones. The programmable motion device is preferably a robotic arm capable of moving a cutting element in at least three substantially orthogonal axes. The controller operates the conveyor to move a box to a cutting position relative to the robotic arm, and the controller actuates a stopping rail to stop the box in the cutting position on the conveyor. Once the box is stopped, the controller actuates a positioning rail to hold the box in the cutting position against a rail of the conveyor.”)
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 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doke in view of Edwards et al. (US 20220063042 A1), hereinafter Edwards.
Regarding claim 8, Doke discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 1.
Doke does not explicitly disclose, but Edwards teaches:
wherein the circuitry is configured to control the robot so that a torque on the blade changes between when the robot cuts the face of the packaging material with the blade and when the robot cuts the corner of the packaging material with the blade (see at least [0043]: “In some implementations, the automated container cutting system 100 includes a torque sensor 136. The torque sensor 136 is operatively connected to the cutting tool 106 such that the torque sensor 136 is configured to measure torque exerted on the cutter 118 of the cutting tool 106. The measurements of the torque sensor 136 generate torque data that represents torque exerted on the cutter 118 of the cutting tool 106 as the cutter 118 cuts a wall (e.g., the wall 112, etc.) of a container (e.g., the container 102, etc.). Optionally, the torque data includes a torque trace composed of a plurality of measurements of the torque exerted on the cutter 118 of the cutting tool 106 as the cutter moves toward, through, and/or past the thickness of the container wall.”)
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 Doke with the measurement and control of torque on the cutting blade because as stated by Edwards’ Summary: “The resistive force data represents resistive force exerted on the cutting tool as the cutting tool pierces a wall of the container. The at least one processor is configured to determine whether the cutting tool has penetrated through the wall of the container using the received resistive force data,” thereby allowing the system greater control over the robotic cutter.
Regarding claim 11, Doke discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 1.
Doke does not explicitly disclose, but Edwards teaches:
wherein the circuitry is configured to: detect a thickness of the packaging material based on a torque on the blade, and control the robot so that an orientation of the blade changes based on the thickness (see at least [0043]: “In some implementations, the automated container cutting system 100 includes a torque sensor 136. The torque sensor 136 is operatively connected to the cutting tool 106 such that the torque sensor 136 is configured to measure torque exerted on the cutter 118 of the cutting tool 106. The measurements of the torque sensor 136 generate torque data that represents torque exerted on the cutter 118 of the cutting tool 106 as the cutter 118 cuts a wall (e.g., the wall 112, etc.) of a container (e.g., the container 102, etc.). Optionally, the torque data includes a torque trace composed of a plurality of measurements of the torque exerted on the cutter 118 of the cutting tool 106 as the cutter moves toward, through, and/or past the thickness of the container wall.”)
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 Doke with the measurement and control of torque on the cutting blade because as stated by Edwards’ Summary: “The resistive force data represents resistive force exerted on the cutting tool as the cutting tool pierces a wall of the container. The at least one processor is configured to determine whether the cutting tool has penetrated through the wall of the container using the received resistive force data,” thereby allowing the system greater control over the robotic cutter.
Claims 12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doke in view of Tsujimori et al. (US 20220219857 A1), hereinafter Tsujimori.
Regarding claim 12, Doke discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 1.
Doke does not explicitly disclose, but Tsujimori teaches:
wherein the circuitry is configured to control the robot so that the robot cuts the packaging material in which a bag-shaped content is packaged with the blade (see at least [0103]: “Therefore, as illustrated in FIG. 8F, one side of the tape 34 at the bottom side of the box 33 is cut in the transverse direction (Step S3-1). Note that, in the case of the H-shaped tape pasting mode, the tape corresponding to one of the short sides of the box 33 is also cut. Moreover, the cutting operation described above is carried out by moving the box 33 in a vertical plane including the extending surface of the point of the cutting blade 41.”)
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 Doke with the method of fixing a box into place as taught by Tsujimori because as stated by [0007] of Tsujimori: “Therefore, the box can be unpacked while dealing with the various sizes of the box and various seal types. In addition, since the surface of the box is oriented upward when it is cut open, an accommodated item(s) inside the box is brought closer to the lower part by its own weight, thereby reducing the possibility of the damage to the accommodated item(s) by the cutting blade.”
Regarding claim 16, Doke discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 15.
Doke does not explicitly disclose, but Tsujimori teaches wherein the robot control system further comprises a suction device configured to suck the at least the part in contact with the bottom face (See at least [0085]: “The suction part 18 is provided to a lower surface of the body part 11. The suction part 18 is comprised of a vacuum suction pad, for example. The suction part 18 is provided, for example, so that the center axis is in agreement with the reference axis AR. The suction part 18 performs sucking/releasing operation by the pneumatic controlling circuit described above.”)
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 Doke with the method of fixing a box into place as taught by Tsujimori because as stated by [0007] of Tsujimori: “Therefore, the box can be unpacked while dealing with the various sizes of the box and various seal types. In addition, since the surface of the box is oriented upward when it is cut open, an accommodated item(s) inside the box is brought closer to the lower part by its own weight, thereby reducing the possibility of the damage to the accommodated item(s) by the cutting blade.”
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Doke and Tsujimori discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 16.
Doke does not explicitly disclose, but Tsujimori teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to control the suction device so that a suction force of the suction device increases when the robot rotates around and cuts the side face of the packaging material with the blade (see at least [0084]: “However, depending on the state of the accommodated item(s) 36 (for example, when the number of accommodated items 36 is small), the length and the bending degree of the pair of gripper members 13A and 13B may be set (designed) so that, in a state where the body part 11 is located above the cardboard box 33 (in detail, in a state where the suction part 18 sucks the center part of the upper surface of the cardboard box 33), the pair of pawls 15A and 15B are stuck into a part of any one of the left-and-right side walls of the cardboard box 33, and the pair of friction members 17A and 17B contact a part of any one of the left-and-right side walls of the cardboard box 33.”)
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 Doke with the method of fixing a box into place as taught by Tsujimori because as stated by [0007] of Tsujimori: “Therefore, the box can be unpacked while dealing with the various sizes of the box and various seal types. In addition, since the surface of the box is oriented upward when it is cut open, an accommodated item(s) inside the box is brought closer to the lower part by its own weight, thereby reducing the possibility of the damage to the accommodated item(s) by the cutting blade.”
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Doke and Tsujimori discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 15.
Doke does not explicitly disclose, but Tsujimori teaches the robot control system further comprising: another robot different from the robot; and circuitry configured to control the another robot so that the another robot fixes the packaging material by supporting the packaging material in a direction different from a direction of a force applied to the packaging material by the blade (see at least figures 8C-8H)
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 Doke with the method of fixing a box into place as taught by Tsujimori because as stated by [0007] of Tsujimori: “Therefore, the box can be unpacked while dealing with the various sizes of the box and various seal types. In addition, since the surface of the box is oriented upward when it is cut open, an accommodated item(s) inside the box is brought closer to the lower part by its own weight, thereby reducing the possibility of the damage to the accommodated item(s) by the cutting blade.”
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Doke and Tsujimori discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 15.
Doke does not explicitly disclose, but Tsujimori teaches the robot control system further comprising another robot different from the robot; wherein the circuitry is configured to control the another robot so that the another robot fixes a top face of the packaging material or the at least the part in contact with the bottom face (see at least figures 8C-8H)
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 Doke with the method of fixing a box into place as taught by Tsujimori because as stated by [0007] of Tsujimori: “Therefore, the box can be unpacked while dealing with the various sizes of the box and various seal types. In addition, since the surface of the box is oriented upward when it is cut open, an accommodated item(s) inside the box is brought closer to the lower part by its own weight, thereby reducing the possibility of the damage to the accommodated item(s) by the cutting blade.”
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Doke and Tsujimori discloses:
The robot control system according to claim 19.
Doke does not explicitly disclose, but Tsujimori teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to control the another robot so that the another robot removes an upper portion or a bottom of the packaging material after cutting of the packaging material is complete (see at least [0059]: “The robot 1 drops the empty box 33 on the empty box discharging conveyor 56. Then, the empty box discharging conveyor 56 takes out the empty box 33. When a series of box unpacking operations are repeated and the top of the pallet 31 becomes empty, the empty pallet 31 is conveyed to the pallet magazine 53 and the next actual pallet 31 is stopped at the depalletizing area 51, by the actual pallet conveyor 52. The empty pallets 31 are stacked on the pallet magazine 53.”)
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 Doke with the method of fixing a box into place as taught by Tsujimori because as stated by [0007] of Tsujimori: “Therefore, the box can be unpacked while dealing with the various sizes of the box and various seal types. In addition, since the surface of the box is oriented upward when it is cut open, an accommodated item(s) inside the box is brought closer to the lower part by its own weight, thereby reducing the possibility of the damage to the accommodated item(s) by the cutting blade.”
Conclusion
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