DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final office action in response to the communications received on October 22, 2009.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13-14, 16-18, 22, 25-26 have been amended.
Claims 4, 8, 10-11, 19-21, 23-24 have been canceled.
Claims 29-31 have been added.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-18, 22, and 25-31 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant amendments to claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13-14, 16-18, 22 and 25-26 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding 103 rejections have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant’s arguments regarding 101 rejections have been considered and found persuasive. The combination of specific machinery and functions amounts significantly more to any abstract idea. The invention encompasses a practical application by providing a system that is more versatile in grasping objects of various characteristics.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 12-18, 22 and 25-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil (US 2021/0260766A1) in view of Bidram (US 2022/0110270 A1).
Claim 1
Patil discloses the following limitations:
A surveillance system comprising: an image sensor configured to capture an image of a product being manipulated in a warehouse; (see at least figure 1-112 image sensors and paragraphs 0049-0050).
a robotic arm coupled to a controller, wherein the robotic arm is configured to handle the product (see at least abstract and paragraph 0067-the controller generates signals to control the movement of the arm).
and a software module, operatively connected to the image sensor and the controller and configured to determine a path by which the product should move within the warehouse based at least in part on the image of the product (see at least paragraph 0054-Based on the image data, the control server 114 detects the stack that includes the deformable object to be handled. By utilizing image processing techniques, the control server 114 processes the image data and determines a contour of the stack or of the deformable objects in the stack; paragraph 0054-The control server 114 may communicate path information to be followed by the AGVs 106 ).
Patil discloses first and second robotic arms with corresponding first and second end effectors. Patil does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however Bidram does:
and wherein the robotic arm is configured to attach and detach to a plurality of end effectors (see at least paragraph 0010-The robotic arm may autonomously couple with different end effectors to perform variety of tasks).
select an end effector from the plurality of end effectors for handling of the product by the robotic arm based at least in part on the image of the product, (see at least paragraph 0010-The robotic arm may autonomously couple with different end effectors to perform variety of tasks).
and(iii) instruct the controller of the robotic arm to cause the robotic arm to attach the end effector selected in (ii) for handling of the product. (see at least paragraph 0010-The robotic arm may autonomously couple with different end effectors to perform variety of tasks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Patil and Bidram in order to improve efficiency by performing variety of tasks (Bidram paragraph 0010). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 2
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the software module is further configured to determine whether to use human intervention to handle the product (see at least paragraph 0085).
Claim 3
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the human intervention comprises remote operation of a robot. (see at least paragraph 0085).
Claim 6
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the image sensor is provided after a robotic arm, and wherein the software module is further configured to determine if the robotic arm properly handled the product. (see at least paragraphs 0084-0085).
Claim 7
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
further comprising a database, wherein the database comprises information related to the product, (see at least paragraphs 0055-0058 and database 116 in figure 1).
wherein the information related to the product comprises a size of the product, a weight of the product, a shape of the product, a machine-readable code location of the product, anomalies detected in handling of the product, a packaging size of the product or combinations thereof. (see at least paragraph 0055).
Claim 12
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the software module is a cloud-based module. (see at least paragraphs 0037).
Claim 13
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the software module in operative communication with a computer processor. (see at least figure 1-communication network 118).
Claim 15
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein determining the appropriate trajectory comprises determining if the product should be directed to a robotic handler or a human handler. (see at least paragraph 0085).
Claim 16
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: causing a second image sensor to capture a second image of the product after the product leaves the handling station, and analyzing the second image using the software module.(see at least paragraph 0114-plurality of image sensors 112; the control server 114 identifies the gap developed between the partially lifted first deformable object 302a and the remaining stack).
Claim 17
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the plurality of end effectors comprise at least two different types selected from the group consisting of vacuum gripper, magnetic gripper, single suction gripper, multiple suction gripper, area gripper, and fingergripper (see at least paragraph 0027-vacuum gripper).
Claim 18
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: comparing, by the software module, the image of the product to an expected image of the product stored within a product database; and generating an alert when a difference between the image of the product and the expected image exceeds a predetermined tolerance. (see at least paragraph 0057).
Claim 22
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: associating product information from a product database with the product, (see at least paragraph 0055).
and wherein determining the appropriate trajectory comprises determining: a maximum speed at which the product is able to be conveyed, a speed at which the product is able to be handled by the robotic arm, a force required to manipulate the product, a minimum size packaging for the product, or combinations thereof. (see at least paragraph 0030).
Claim 25
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the software module is a cloud-based module. (see at least paragraphs 0037).
Claim 26
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the software module in operative communication with a computer processor. (see at least figure 1-communication network 118).
Claim 27
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
comprising: comparing, by the software module, the second image of the product to an expected image of the product stored within a product database; (see at least paragraphs 0035 and 0056-0057).
and generating an alert when a difference between the second image of the product and the expected image exceeds a predetermined tolerance. (see at least paragraphs 0076, 0085 and 0095).
Claim 28
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: determining, using the software module, if the product was properly manipulated at the handling station based on the second image of the product. (see at least paragraphs 0084-0085).
Claim 29
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the plurality of end effectors comprise at least two different types selected from the group consisting of vacuum gripper, magnetic gripper, single suction gripper, multiple suction gripper, area gripper, and finger gripper. (see at least paragraph 0027-vacuum gripper).
Claim 30
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the image sensor is physically coupled to the robotic arm. (see at least figure 1 and paragraph 0050).
Claim 31
Furthermore, Patil discloses the following limitations:
wherein the image sensor is physically coupled to the robotic arm. (see at least figure 1 and paragraph 0050).
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil (US 20210260766A1) in view of Bidram (US 2022/0110270 A1), further in view of Dean (US 2019/0025849 A1).
Claim 5
Patil in at least paragraph 0030 discloses that the robotic arm uses pressure sensors to determine whether an object was lifted accurately. The combination Patil/Bidram does not explicitly disclose the following limitations:
and wherein the software module is further configured to determine a maximum speed for handling of the product by the robotic arm.
However, Dean which is analogous prior art, in at least paragraphs 0038 and 0071 evidences that determining and controlling maximum speed a robot should move in order to efficiently perform tasks related to product management and inventorying is conventional in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Patil/Bidram with Dean in order to manage products and shelves effectively in retail or warehouse premises (Dean paragraph 0003). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 9
Patil in at least paragraph 0030 discloses that the robotic arm uses pressure sensors to determine whether an object was lifted accurately. Patil does not explicitly disclose the following limitations:
wherein the software module is further configured to determine a speed at which the product is moved along a conveyor system.
However, Dean which is analogous prior art, in at least paragraphs 0038 and 0071 evidences that determining and controlling speed in order to efficiently perform tasks related to product management and inventorying is conventional in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Patil/Bidram with Dean in order to manage products and shelves effectively in retail or warehouse premises (Dean paragraph 0003). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
As per claim 14, claim 14 recite substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Teng (US 2020/0033833 A1) discloses robotic arms configured to be coupled to a plurality of end effectors. The plurality of end effectors configured to perform different functions and can be quickly exchanged.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights