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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Tawara does not disclose determining possibility of gripping by searching the gripping position and posture using the priority gripping position and posture as a starting point. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tawara in para. 210 discloses when there is determined to be interference with the hand with a surrounding object then keeping the holding position the same and changing at least either the position or orientation of the hand before performing another interference determination. This is equivalent to the claimed using the priority gripping position and posture as a start point based on a predetermined rule as it keeps the holding the position the same and changes just the position or orientation of the hand.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to provisional double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The provisional double patenting has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: storing unit, matching unit, model positioning unit, and grip determining unit in claim 1; obstacle information generating unit in claim 6; and release determining unit in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For example, these units are embodied as a processor as disclosed in para. 16 of the specification as filed
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tawara (US 2022/0016784).
As per claim 1, Tawara discloses a workpiece pick-up system comprising:
a three-dimensional measuring instrument configured to measure a shape of a workpiece (see at least ¶102 for acquiring three-dimensional shape data of each of the workpieces WK from image captured by sensor 2);
a robot including a hand for gripping the workpiece (see at least ¶90-91 for robot RBT with hand HND for holding workpiece WK); and
a control device configured to control the robot to pick up the workpiece based on a measurement result of the three-dimensional measuring instrument (see at least ¶97 for robot controller 6 for controlling robot), the control device comprising:
a storing unit configured to store a workpiece model obtained by modeling a three- dimensional shape of the workpiece and a hand model obtained by modeling a three- dimensional shape of the hand (see at least ¶119-122 for workpiece model input part 302 for inputting a workpiece model and registration part 302 for registering a hand model and storage in storage part 320);
a matching unit configured to identify a position and a posture of the workpiece by performing a matching process between the measurement result of the three-dimensional measuring instrument and the workpiece model (see at least ¶201-204 for determining position and orientation of workpiece using three-dimensional measurement of the workspace and workpiece model);
a model positioning unit configured to position the workpiece model in a virtual space in the position and the posture identified by the matching unit (see at least ¶204-207 for identifying position and orientation of workpiece model based on three-dimensional search and determining whether the hand model interferes with surrounding objects at a particular holding position); and
a grip determining unit configured to position the hand model in the virtual space and determine a gripping position and posture that are a position and a posture of the hand when the hand grips the workpiece, based on a relationship between the hand model and the workpiece model that are positioned in the virtual space (see at least ¶138 for setting the holding position and orientation of the hand model while adjusting the position of the hand model with respect to the workpiece model), wherein
the storing unit stores a priority gripping position and posture set as a prioritized relative position and posture of the hand model with respect to the workpiece model (see at least ¶137-138 for selecting the surface of the workpiece model to be held and registering the position and orientation of the hand when holding the selected surface), and
in a case where the grip determining unit, in determining possibility of gripping in the priority gripping position and pose, determines that gripping is impossible, the grip determining unit determines possibility of gripping in a position and a posture modified from the priority gripping position and posture by searching for the gripping position and posture using the priority gripping position and posture as a starting point based on a predetermined rule (see at least ¶208-210 for when interference of a position and orientation of a hand at a holding position is determined with a surrounding object then keep the holding position the same and change the position or orientation of the hand before rechecking interference; wherein the predetermined rule is implied by keeping the holding position the same and changing the position or orientation of the hand).
As per claim 5, Tawara further discloses wherein the model positioning unit positions the workpiece model of the workpiece as a pick-up target and a workpiece model of a workpiece other than the pick-up target in the virtual space, and the grip determining unit determines the gripping position and posture such that the hand model does not interfere with the workpiece model of the workpiece other than the pick-up target (see at least ¶207 for determining whether or not the hand model interferes with a surrounding object including workpiece WK other than an object to be held).
As per claim 6, Tawara further discloses wherein the control device further comprises an obstacle information generating unit configured to generate obstacle information excluding information corresponding to the grippable area from the measurement result of the three-dimensional measuring instrument (see at least ¶102 for determining three-dimensional shape of container BX), and the grip determining unit determines the gripping position and posture such that the hand model does not interfere with a shape indicated by the obstacle information (see at least ¶207 for determining whether or not the hand model interferes with a surrounding object including container BX).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tawara in view of Nakao (Applicant submitted machine translation of JP2021091056).
As per claim 7, Tawara is silent regarding, but Nakao teaches wherein the control device further comprises a release determining unit configured to determine a release position and posture that are a position and a posture of the hand when the hand releases the workpiece picked up, based on the gripping position and posture determined by the grip determining unit (see at least para. 111-113 for generating place position and orientation corresponding to grip candidate position and posture).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tawara with the features of Nakao in order to reduce the burden on a user by automatically determining a place position for placing the workpiece in a unique position and orientation for each of a plurality of gripping solutions.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tawara in view of Endo (“Virtual Grasping Assessment using 3D Digital Hand Model”).
As per claim 8, Tawara is silent regarding wherein the grip determining unit determines the gripping position and posture based on a size of a contact area between the workpiece model and the hand model.
However, Endo teaches a solution to semi-automatically grasp a virtual object with a virtual hand model by generating a grasp to maximize the contract between the hand and the object (see at least section 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tawara with the features of Endo because maximizing the contact area provides for a more stable grasp.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights