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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalouche et al (US PG. Pub. 2024/0246764) in view of Bastian et al (US PG. Pub. 2020/0277137). Relative to claim 1, Kalouche discloses:
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 9A)][AltContent: textbox (Distal end)][AltContent: textbox (Arm)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (robot)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
329
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 9D)][AltContent: textbox (item)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Bin 110)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
257
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 12C)][AltContent: textbox (Order bin/container 21421214214)][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (Bin)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
407
492
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A method for retrieving an item from a bin (110) in a warehouse (Fig. 9A), comprising:
controlling a robot (200) to move from a first position within the warehouse to a second position within the warehouse (Para. 0129), the first position being remote from the bin (110) and the second position being adjacent the bin (110)(Para. 0129);
controlling the robot (200) to cause a distal end of a picking arm (206) to extend away from the robot (200)(Para. 135);
controlling the robot to cause a component (248) at the distal end of the picking arm (206) to engage the item (Para. 0135, positioning arm extends vertically); and
controlling the robot (200) to cause the distal end to move toward the robot (200) while the component is engaged with the item (Para. 0135, 0137).
Kalouche does not expressly disclose: the component of the robot is a magnetic component at the distal end of the picking arm to engage a ferromagnetic component attached to the item, and the magnetic component of the robot engages with the ferromagnetic component of the item.
Bastian teaches: the component of the robot (605)(Para. 0125) is a magnetic component at the distal end of the picking arm to engage a component attached to the item (Para. 0191), and the magnetic component of the robot engages with the component of the item (Para. 0191), for the purpose of providing a method and system of processing a variety of mixed goods to be loaded for shipping in a warehousing system that is more efficient and cost effective (Para. 0003; 0144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Kalouche with the magnetic component on the robot arm for engaging the item as taught in Bastian for the purpose of providing a method and system of processing a variety of mixed goods to be loaded for shipping in a warehousing system that is more efficient and cost effective.
Relative to claim 1, the disclosure of Kalouche in view of Bastian does not expressly disclose: the picking arm engages a ferromagnetic component attached to the item.
Kalouche in view of Bastian teaches the picking arm engages a ferromagnetic component attached to the item as an obvious matter of design choice. Since the end-effector (605) of Bastian includes a magnetic component to pick up the object, the picked item must include a magnetically attractable portion for the magnetic end effector to function. Providing the item with a ferromagnetic component as the magnetically attractable portion so that the item can be picked up by the magnet is well-known in materials handling. See MPEP §2144.01, 2144.03.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kalouche in view of Bastian so that the picked item has a ferromagnetic component since the item must include a magnetically attractable portion, such as a ferromagnetic component for the magnetic end effector to perform the picking.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalouche in view of Bastian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Birkmeyer et al (US PG. Pub. 2018/0066889).
Relative to claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8, Kalouche in view of Bastian discloses all claim limitations described above, including: using one or more sensors of the robot (see sensors 264 on robot arm, Kalouche, Para. 0151) to detect the tag in the bin and read a code on the tag (Para. 0151); and determining, by the robot (see robot of Kalouche, Para. 0172), that the code corresponds to the item (Kalouche, sensors determine the correct item has been picked, Para. 0172).
Kalouche in view of Bastian does not expressly disclose:
claim 2) the ferromagnetic component is included in a tag adhered to packaging of the item using an adhesive;
claim 5) the ferromagnetic component comprises gauge steel or a polymer embedded with a ferromagnetic material;
claim 6) the magnetic component comprises a permanent magnet; or
claim 8) the magnetic component comprises an electromagnet which is selectively energized to engage or disengage from the ferromagnetic component of the tag.
Birkmeyer teaches:
claim 2) the ferromagnetic component (disk, 204, comprising ferromagnetic material) is included in a tag adhered to packaging of the item (108)(Fig. 1A) using an adhesive (Para. 0049);
claim 5) the ferromagnetic component comprises steel or a polymer embedded with a ferromagnetic material (Para. 0038);
claim 6) the magnetic component comprises a permanent magnet (Para. 0070); and
claim 8) the magnetic component comprises an electromagnet which is selectively energized to engage or disengage from the ferromagnetic component of the tag (204)(robot system selectively activates and deactivates magnets on end effector, 104, to pick up and release items, Para. 0031).
Birkmeyer teaches the: the ferromagnetic component included in a tag, the ferromagnetic component comprises steel or a polymer, the magnetic component comprises a permanent magnet, and the magnetic component comprises an electromagnet, described above, for the purpose of providing a system and method that uses robots to manipulate dishes that reduces time and labor, and is automated (Para. 0002, 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Kalouche in view of Bastian with: the ferromagnetic component included in a tag, the ferromagnetic component comprises steel or a polymer, the magnetic component comprises a permanent magnet, and the magnetic component comprises an electromagnet, as taught in Birkmeyer for the purpose of providing a system and method that uses robots to manipulate dishes that reduces time and labor, and is automated.
Relative to claim 5, the disclosure of Kalouche in view of Birkmeyer does not expressly disclose the steel in the ferromagnetic component is gauge steel.
Kalouche in view of Birkmeyer teaches: the steel in the ferromagnetic component comprises gauge steel, as an obvious matter of design choice. Since gauge steel is a type of steel, Birkmeyer’s disclosure implies or at least suggests that the steel may be gauge steel (see Para. 0050) since gauge steel is a known species of steel. See MPEP §2144.03
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kalouche in view of Birkmeyer so that the steel in the ferromagnetic component is gauge steel, as a matter of design choice, since gauge steel is a well-known species of steel.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalouche in view of Bastian and Birkmeyer as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ahmed (US 10,346,659). Relative to claim 4, Kalouche in view of Bastian and Birkmeyer discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose: the tag includes a fluorescent material, and the method further comprises: using an ultraviolet light source on the robot to illuminate fluorescent material.
Ahmed teaches: the tag (104) includes a fluorescent material (see marks 106 on tag), and the method further comprises: using an ultraviolet light source on the robot to illuminate fluorescent material (Col. 5, lines 32-44), for the purpose of providing an improved method of monitoring the movement of inventory within a facility, such as a retailer or warehouse that is less expensive, and faster (Col. 1, lines 25-28; Col. 2, lines 39-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Kalouche in view of Bastian and Birkmeyer so that the tag includes a fluorescent material, and using an ultraviolet light source on the robot to illuminate fluorescent material as taught in Ahmed, for the purpose of providing an improved method of monitoring the movement of inventory within a facility, such as a retailer or warehouse that is less expensive, and faster.
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US PG Pub. 2021/012276). Relative to claims 10 and 14, Gupta discloses:
claim 10) A service drone (320, UAV)(Fig. 2A), comprising:
a frame (see body of UAV);
one or more propellers (propeller) coupled to the frame (Para. 0211);
one or more first motors configured to drive the one or more propellers to provide thrust to navigate the service drone within an environment (rotary motors drive the propellers, Para. 0211; 0127);
a picking arm (336) coupled to the frame, the picking arm having a distal end (the distal end on the arm for picking the objects is inherently included);
an end effector coupled to the distal end (Para. 0211, see UAV extending arms attach to the package using suction, magnets, and other means to pick up the package; Para. 0201);
one or more second motors (see various motors, Para. 0120) configured to cause the distal end to move relative to the frame) and
one or more processors (included in UAV computing system, 322; Para. 0033; 0047) configured to carry out an assigned mission to retrieve an item from a bin (200)(Fig. 2A,5A) by:
(A) controlling the one or more first motors (included in “motors”) to navigate the service drone (320) to the bin (200)(Fig. 5A)(Para. 0127);
(B) controlling the one or more second motors (included in “motors”) to cause the distal end (see end near extending arms, 336, 366)(Fig. 4A) to enable the end effector (end effector is included with various arms, such as extending arms, 336, 366) to engage the item (Para. 0128); and
claim 14) the end effector comprises one or more suction cups (337)(Fig. 4A) adapted to engage a surface of the item (Para. 0128).
Gupte does not expressly disclose: the distal end of the arm moves laterally relative to the frame, or controlling the one or more second motors to cause the distal end to be moved laterally toward the frame while the end effector is engaged with the item.
Gupte teaches: controlling the one or more second motors to cause the distal end to be moved laterally toward the frame while the end effector is engaged with the item as an obvious matter of design choice.
Gupte discloses that the arm 336 of the drone extends and retracts to pick up a package (Para. 0128; 0212). This implies that the arm 336 retracts towards the drone or UAV frame as the item is retrieved to successfully carry the package from one place to another (Para. 0128; 0212).
Gupte can be modified so that the distal end is moved laterally toward and away from the UAV frame while the end effector is engaged with the item, since the bin (pod 200) includes a front door that is configured to be accessed from a lateral direction (see Fig. 3A, the door opens along a horizontal plane).
This implies that the drone (UAV 320) is configured to have extending arms that may extend and retract laterally to access the opening of the pod (200). See MPEP §2144.03
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Gupte so that the distal end of the UAV is moved laterally toward and away from the frame while the end effector is engaged with the item since the bin includes a front door that is configured to be accessed from a lateral direction.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Birkmeyer (US PG. Pub. 2018/0036889). Relative to claim 11, Gupta discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose:
the end effector comprises a permanent magnet adapted to engage a ferromagnetic component of a tag adhered to the item; or
the end effector (104) comprises an electromagnet; and the one or more processors are further configured to control the electromagnet to cause the electromagnet to selectively engage or disengage from a ferromagnetic component of a tag adhered to the item (Para. 0031).
Birkmeyer teaches: the end effector comprises a permanent magnet adapted to engage a ferromagnetic component of a tag adhered to the item (Para. 0070); and
the end effector comprises an electromagnet; and the one or more processors are further configured to control the electromagnet to cause the electromagnet to selectively engage or disengage from a ferromagnetic component of a tag adhered to the item, for the purpose of providing a system and method that uses robots to manipulate dishes that reduces time and labor, and is automated (Para. 0002, 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the drone of Gupta so that the end effector comprises a permanent magnet, and causing the electromagnet to selectively engage or disengage from a ferromagnetic component of a tag described above, as taught in Birkmeyer for the purpose of providing a system and method that uses robots to manipulate dishes that reduces time and labor, and is automated.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Clancy (GB 2610694). Relative to claim 15, Gupta discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose: a camera and an illumination source coupled to the distal end of the picking arm to read a code on the item.
Clancy teaches: a camera (200)(Fig. 6) and an illumination source (see lighting elements) coupled to the distal end of the picking arm (robotic arm) to read a code on the item (see barcode scanner)(Page 12, Para. 1-2), for the purpose of providing a robotic picking station comprising a robotic arm that can store and retrieve items for customer orders more efficiently and with minimal space (Page 1, Para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify the system of Gupta with the camera and an illumination source coupled to the distal end of the picking arm as taught in Clancy for the purpose of providing a robotic picking station comprising a robotic arm that can store and retrieve items for customer orders more efficiently and with minimal space.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Clancy as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ahmed et al (US Patent No. 10,346,659). Relative to claim 16, Gupta discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose: the illumination source comprises an ultraviolet light.
Ahmed teaches: the illumination source comprises an ultraviolet light (Col. 5, lines 32-45)(Fig. 1), for the purpose of providing an improved method of monitoring the movement of inventory within a facility, such as a retailer or warehouse that is less expensive, and faster (Col. 1, lines 25-28; Col. 2, lines 39-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify the drone of Gupta in view of Clancy so that the illumination source comprises an ultraviolet light as taught in Ahmed for the purpose of providing an improved method of monitoring the movement of inventory within a facility, such as a retailer or warehouse that is less expensive, and faster.
Claim(s) 17-19, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalouche in view of Birkmeyer. Relative to claims 17-19, and 21-22, Kalouche discloses:
claim 17) A method, comprising:
controlling the robot (200) to move from a first position within a warehouse to a second position within the warehouse (Para. 0129), the first position being remote from the bin and the second position being adjacent the bin and retrieving an item from the bin (robot moves to bin, 110, retrieves items from bin, and deposits items into another container, 214; Para. 0137);
operating the robot to lift the item (Para. 0137), and enabling the robot (200) to move the item to a third position within the warehouse, the third position being remote from the bin (Para. 0137); and
claim 19) using one or more sensors of the robot to detect the tag in the bin and read a code on the tag (Para. 0151; 0172); and determining, by the robot, that the code corresponds to the item (Para. 0172).
Kalouche does not expressly disclose:
claim 17) adhering a tag comprising a ferromagnetic component to an item to be retrieved from a bin by a robot and operating the robot so that an attractive force between a magnetic collection tip of the robot and the ferromagnetic component lifts the item;
claim 18) the ferromagnetic component comprises gauge steel or a polymer embedded with a ferromagnetic material;
claim 21) the magnetic collection tip comprises a permanent magnet;
claim 22) the magnetic collection tip comprises an electromagnet, and the method further comprises:
operating the electromagnet to selectively generate the attractive force between the magnetic collection tip and the ferromagnetic component of the tag.
Birkmeyer teaches:
claim 17) adhering a tag comprising a ferromagnetic component (disk, 204, comprising ferromagnetic material) to an item to be retrieved from a bin (110) by a robot (100, 102) and operating the robot so that an attractive force between a magnetic collection tip of the robot (102) and the ferromagnetic component lifts the item (Para. 0031; 0049);
claim 18) the ferromagnetic component comprises steel or a polymer embedded with a ferromagnetic material (Para. 0038; 0050, see thin steel);
claim 21) the magnetic collection tip comprises a permanent magnet (Para. 0070);
claim 22) the magnetic collection tip comprises an electromagnet, and the method further comprises:
operating the electromagnet to selectively generate the attractive force between the magnetic collection tip and the ferromagnetic component of the tag (204)(robot system selectively activates and deactivates magnets on end effector, 104, to pick up and release items, Para. 0031).
Birkmeyer teaches: adhering a tag comprising a ferromagnetic component, the ferromagnetic component comprises gauge steel or a polymer, the magnetic collection tip comprises a permanent magnet, and the magnetic collection tip comprises an electromagnet to selectively generate the attractive force, as described above, for the purpose of providing a system and method that uses robots to manipulate dishes that reduces time and labor, and is automated (Para. 0002, 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the method of Kalouche with: adhering a tag comprising a ferromagnetic component comprising gauge steel or a polymer, the magnetic collection tip comprises a permanent magnet, or the magnetic collection tip comprises an electromagnet described above, as taught in Birkmeyer for the purpose of providing a system and method that uses robots to manipulate dishes that reduces time and labor, and is automated.
Relative to claim 18, the disclosure of Kalouche in view of Birkmeyer does not expressly disclose the steel in the ferromagnetic component is gauge steel.
Kalouche in view of Birkmeyer teaches: the steel in the ferromagnetic component is gauge steel, as an obvious matter of design choice. Since gauge steel is a type of steel, Birkmeyer’s disclosure suggests the steel may be gauge steel since gauge steel is a known species of steel. See MPEP §2144.03
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kalouche in view of Birkmeyer so that the steel in the ferromagnetic component is gauge steel, as a matter of design choice, since gauge steel is a well-known species of steel.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalouche in view of Birkmeyer as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ahmed. Relative to claim 10, Kalouche in view of Birkmeyer discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose:
the tag includes a fluorescent material, and the method further comprises: using an ultraviolet light source on the robot to illuminate fluorescent material.
Ahmed teaches: the tag (104) includes a fluorescent material (Col. 5, lines 40-43), and the method further comprises: using an ultraviolet light source on the robot to illuminate fluorescent material (Col. 5, lines 32-45)(Fig. 1, for the purpose of providing an improved method of monitoring the movement of inventory within a facility, such as a retailer or warehouse that is less expensive, and faster (Col. 1, lines 25-28; Col. 2, lines 39-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the method of Kalouche in view of Birkmeyer so that the tag includes a fluorescent material, and using an ultraviolet light source on the robot to illuminate fluorescent material as taught in Ahmed for the purpose of providing an improved method of monitoring the movement of inventory within a facility, such as a retailer or warehouse that is less expensive, and faster.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalouche and Birkmeyer as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Stark et al (US PG. Pub. 2024/0076129). Relative to claim 23, Kalouche in view of Birkmeyer discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose:
the robot comprises a drone, and the method further comprises:
controlling one or more propellers of the drone to cause the drone to fly to from the first position to the second position; and
controlling the one or more propellers to cause the drone to fly from the second position to the third position, the third position is a drop destination for the item.
Stark teaches: the robot comprises a drone (Para. 0060; delivery robot may be a drone), and the method further comprises:
controlling one or more propellers (not shown) of the drone to cause the drone to fly to from the first position to the second position (Para. 0060); and
controlling the one or more propellers to cause the drone to fly from the second position to the third position, the third position being a drop destination for the item (since the delivery robot may comprise a drone, although the propellers are not shown, the drone inherently has propellers to cause the drone to fly to various locations, also, delivering the item by the drone to a third destination is inherent since the drone delivers packages to a delivery address, the delivery address is the third position where the package is dropped off; Para. 0060; 0004).
Stark teaches: the robot comprises a drone, and controlling one or more propellers of the drone to cause the drone to fly from a first position to a second and third position as mentioned above, for the purpose of providing a system and method for delivering packages that can automatically sort packages in the delivery vehicle during unloading of packages, thereby reducing resources such as time and labor (Para. 0001-0003; 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the method of Kalouche in view of Birkmeyer with: the robot comprising a drone, and controlling the propellers of the drone to cause the drone to fly to from the first position to the second position described above, as taught in Stark for the purpose of providing a system and method for delivering packages that can automatically sort packages in the delivery vehicle during unloading of packages, thereby reducing resources such as time and labor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Relative to claim(s) 7, 9, and 12, the closest available prior art does not disclose:
claim 7) controlling the robot to cause the distal end to move toward the robot until the tag contacts a portion the robot that is configured to engage the tag, thus causing the permanent magnet to release the item;
claim 9) the robot comprises a drone, and controlling the robot to move from the first position to the second position comprises: controlling one or more propellers of the drone to cause the drone to fly from the first position to the second position;
claim 12) a member configured and arranged on the frame to contact the item when the one or more second motors cause the distal end to move close to the frame, thus causing the ferromagnetic component of the tag to become disengaged from the permanent magnet, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOLANDA RENEE CUMBESS whose telephone number is (571)270-5527. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/YOLANDA R CUMBESS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights