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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/08/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1, 2, and 7-10 as filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-16, filed 07/08/2026, with respect to the rejections of
claims 1, 2, and 7-10 are directed towards the claims as amended. Therefore, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Larsson (US Patent application publication 20230415331 A1 hereinafter “Larsson”), in view of Mitsuharu et al (Japanese patent application JP2008246596A, hereinafter “Mitsuharu”), further in view of Hallock et al (US Patent application publication 20200171650 A1 hereinafter “Hallock”), and Reynolds et al (US Patent application publication 20170072558 A1 hereinafter “Reynolds”).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., reliability measures of position control, reduced jerk over non-linear paths or “smoother turns”, reduced forces in end effectors) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The methods claimed in claim 1 are directed towards causing two robot arms to arrange, move, and draw. However, lines 18 and 23 claim the apparatus of two robot arms performing the functions of drawing and moving. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention; a method to control two robot arms, or an apparatus consisting of two robot arms. Examiner suggests changing to, and will examine the claim in light of prior art as if line 18 is changed to “causing the two robot arms to draw the cart” and line 23 is changed to “causing the two robot arms to move the two end effectors”.
The apparatus claimed in claim 10 is directed towards structures that are configured to control, grip, and move. However, line 27 claims the active action of two robot arms that draw the cart toward the robot. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention as it is unclear how robots in an inactive or idle state would read on this claim. Since the claim is an apparatus claim, examiner suggests changing to, and will examine the claim in light of prior art as if line 27 is changed to “the two robot arms configured to draw the cart toward the robot”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson, in view of Mitsuharu, further in view of Reynolds, and Hallock.
Regarding Claim 1, Larsson discloses in figures 1 and 3, and 0075
A control method of a robot that is movable (10a), comprising:
causing two robot arms (30) provided in the robot to arrange two end effectors (32) of the two robot arms at a first interval (34) on a laterally extending gripping portion of a cart (38);
causing the two robot arms to move the two end effectors along the gripping portion so as to increase an interval between the two end effectors to a second interval larger than the first interval;
moving the robot together with the cart in a state where the interval between the two end effectors is the second interval, wherein
the cart includes:
vertical members (44) connected to respective lateral end portions of the gripping portion (38) and configured to impede the end effectors from moving such that the interval exceeds the second interval on the gripping portion; and
at least one support plate (42) configured to support objects, the at least one support plate being connected to an end portion of each of the vertical members in a vertical direction of the cart,
the second interval is an interval in which each of the two end effectors contacts a vertical member of the vertical members
Larsson pertains to the control of mobile robotic arms that grip and transport a cart. Larsson details the moving of the end effectors by stating “Due to the kinematics of the manipulators 30, a horizontal distance 34 between the grippers 32 can be changed”(0075). In figure 7b the end effectors can be seen along the gripping portion. Larsson does not teach that the change in the end effectors along the gripping portion is specifically increased. At the time of filing of the present application, having a robot obtain a proper grip on a cart was a known problem in the art, which included design needs and market pressure to solve the problem. The device described by Larsson offers a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized problem; the horizontal distance 34 can be changed (i.e. increased or decreased). One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the two known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, this portion of claim 1 is rejected on the basis that it would have been obvious to try to increase the interval between the two end effectors (please see MPEP 2143 (E) for further details).
Furthermore, figure 3 and 7a-b of Larsson discloses having vertical members (44) that define the limits of the gripping portion (38). Larsson does not explicitly disclose the end effectors contacting the vertical members in the second interval. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that since the second interval is greater than the first interval, the second interval would correspond with the limit imposed by the end effectors contacting the vertical members (44) at the ends of the gripping member (38). Thus, it is obvious that Larsson discloses the second interval is an interval in which each of the two end effectors contacts a vertical member of the vertical members.
For the remainder of this document, it will be interpreted that the device disclosed by Larsson operates in a “second interval” configuration when gripping the gripping portion. Larson details moving the robot together with the cart by stating “When the at least one end effector is secured to the handle such that the mobile robot and the carrier move in common, the mobile robot and the carrier form a robot carrier system” (0020). Larsson discloses in figure 3; a cart 12a, vertical members 44, a gripping portion 38, and at least one support plate 42. The cart disclosed by Larsson is inherently capable of impeding the end effectors from moving to an interval larger than the second interval.
Regarding the limitation of causing the two robot arms to draw the cart toward the robot in the state where the interval between the two end effectors is the second interval, the robot arms of Larsson are translationally movable relative to the base in a state where the interval between the two end effectors is the second interval. Larsson further states that the axis of the base “may be substantially perpendicular to, or perpendicular to, a separating direction between the base and the carrier of the robot carrier system. In this way, the mobile robot can utilize a support provided by the carrier for stabilization. This in turn enables a reduction of a footprint of the mobile robot. In addition, the movements of the mobile robot in common with the carrier becomes more smooth over uneven surfaces” (0035). But Larsson is silent on the details of how the robot arms change the distance between the axis of the robot base (24a, figure 7b), and the navigation point of the cart (70, figure 7b). However, Mitsuharu teaches causing the two robot arms to draw the cart toward the robot
Regarding the limitation of the two robot arms draw the cart toward the robot and engage the cart with the robot by pressing a movable moving device of the robot against an outermost face of a recessed portion of the support plate positioned between the end portion of each of the vertical members, the recessed portion being recessed in a direction orthogonal to the vertical direction of the cart, Larsson in view of Mitsuharu teaches the two robot arms drawing the cart toward the robot but fails to teach pressing a portion of the robot into a recessed portion of the cart, such as with a mating or docking feature. Similarly, Reynolds teaches drawing a cart toward a robot and engaging the cart. Further Reynolds teaches pressing a movable moving device of the robot against an outermost face of a recessed portion of the support plate. Reynolds pertains to a robotic device for transporting carts and discloses pressing the robot against the face of a recessed portion of the cart in figures 6 and 7, further detailing “The mating feature 14 and cutout 56 are better seen in the bottom view provided in FIG. 7. Notably. FIGS. 6 and 7 illustrate contemplated but non-limiting details, wherein the mating feature 14 of the cart 12 is a V-shaped mating receptacle and the mating feature 22 of the robot 18 is a complementary mating wedge that is sized for insertion into the interior space defined by sidewalls of the V-shaped mating receptacle. The mechanical engagement provided by the wedge-shape of the mating feature 22 and the V-shape of the mating feature 14 facilitates alignment as the mating feature 22 moves into engagement with the mating feature 14, and provides for robust retention of the mechanical engagement during cart transport” (0076). Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to include the docking feature of Reynolds when drawing the cart toward the robot as disclosed by Larsson in view of Mitsuharu, in order to provide for robust retention of the mechanical engagement during cart transport. Furthermore, Reynolds similarly discloses the recessed portion (14) positioned between the end portion of vertical members and being orthogonal to the vertical direction of the cart (see figure 15). Thus, when the docking feature of Reynolds is combined with Larsson in view of Mitsuharu, the resulting orientation of the recessed portion discloses positioned between the end portion of each of the vertical members, the recessed portion being recessed in a direction orthogonal to the vertical direction of the cart.
Larsson teaches how the robot arms move the two end effectors on the gripping portion and how the end effectors “enable both a gripping of the handle 38 and a locking of these grips” (0095). Larsson fails to teach moving the end effectors from a first to second interval while holding the gripping position. However, Hallock teaches the two robot arms move the two end effectors from the first interval to the second interval while the two end effectors hold the gripping portion. Hallock pertains to a robotic manipulator system with a first and second end effector each with a first and second gripping position. The control of which is depicted in figure 7 and described as “the second robotic manipulator can maintain its grasp while the first robotic releases its grasp and repositions itself for a secondary grasp. The second robotic manipulator can operate similarly with the first robotic manipulator holding its grasp while the second robotic manipulator repositions its grasp” (0083). Thus, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to combine the moving of the end effectors along the gripping portion as disclosed by Larsson with the control of the repositioning of end effector grasp as disclosed by Hallock in order to change the position of the cart with respect to the robot.
Regarding Claim 2, Larsson in view of Mitsuharu, further in view of Reynolds and Hallock, discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and Larsson further discloses the two robot arms move the two end effectors from the first interval to the second interval such that distances from a support (22) supporting the two robot arms, the support being positioned above the movable moving device (16 and 18a) in the vertical direction, to the two end effectors become uniform.
Figures 1b, 7b, and 8-12 depict the distance between the two end effectors 32 and the support 22 as uniform.
Regarding Claim 7, Larsson in view of Mitsuharu, further in view of Reynolds and Hallock, discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and Larsson further discloses, wherein the two robot arms draw the cart toward the support supporting the two robot arms such that distances from the support to the two end effectors become uniform in figures 1b, 7b, and 8-12 where the distance between the two end effectors 32 and the support 22 is depicted as uniform.
Regarding Claim 8, Larsson in view of Mitsuharu, further in view of Reynolds and Hallock, discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and Larsson further discloses a control of moving the robot together with the cart is performed by using an occupied region including an occupied region of the robot and an occupied region of the cart.
In 0099 Larsson describes the movement of the robot and cart along a path, particularly “The control system 58 plans movement of the robot carrier system based on the position of the carrier navigation point 70.” Figures 11 and 12 show the carrier navigation point within the occupied region of the robot and within the occupied region of the cart.
Regarding Claim 9, Larsson in view of Mitsuharu, further in view of Reynolds and Hallock, discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and Larsson further discloses wherein the two robot arms and the two end effectors are operated in accordance with an autonomous driving program of the robot.
In 0046 Larsson states “The body, the base and the robot wheels may be constituted by an automated guided vehicle, AGV.” The end effectors are part of the robot, thus operated in accordance with the autonomous driving program of the robot.
Regarding Claim 10, Larsson discloses in figures 1 and 2
A robot (10a), comprising:
a movable moving device (16);
a first robot arm (30) and a second robot arm (30) that are mounted on the moving device and configured to be operable;
a first end effector (32) and a second end effector (32) that are attached to the first robot arm and the second robot arm and configured to perform a gripping operation; and
a control device (58) configured to control operations of the first robot arm, the second robot arm, the first end effector, the second end effector, and the moving device.
The remainder of Claim 10 is similar to Claim 1, and thus the rationale for rejection is similar. Larsson discloses a control device to move robotic arms with end effectors to a first and second interval along the gripping portion of a cart, move the robot with the cart, and the cart includes vertical members that impede the end effectors from exceeding the second interval. Larsson in view of Mitsuharu discloses drawing the cart toward the robot. Larsson and Mitsuharu in view of Reynolds discloses the robot engaging with a recessed portion of the cart. Specifically, as detailed in cthe rejection of claim 1 above, Larsson in view of Mitsuharu, further in view of Reynolds discloses
the control device is configured to: (found in Larsson 0099)
cause the first robot arm and the second robot arm to arrange the first end effector and the second end effector at a first interval on a laterally extending gripping portion of a cart; (found in Larsson figure 1a)
cause the first robot arm and the second robot arm to move the first end effector and the second end effector along the gripping portion, while holding the gripping portion, so as to increase an interval between the first end effector and the second end effector to a second interval larger than the first interval; (found in Larsson 0075 and 0095) and
cause the two robot arms to draw the cart toward the robot in the state where the interval between the two end effectors is the second interval (found in Mitsuharu 0013); and
move the robot together with the cart in a state where the interval between the first end effector and the second end effector is the second interval (found in Larsson 0020),
the cart includes:
vertical members connected to respective lateral end portions of the gripping portion and configured to impede the first end effector and the second end effector from moving such that the interval exceeds the second interval on the gripping portion (found in Larsson figures 1a and 3); and
at least one support plate configured to support objects, the at least one support plate being connected to an end portion of each of the vertical members in a vertical direction of the cart (found in Larsson figures 1a and 3),
the two robot arms draw the cart toward the robot and engage the cart with the robot by pressing the movable moving device of the robot against an outermost face of a recessed portion of the support plate positioned between the end portion of each of the vertical members, the recessed portion being recessed in a direction orthogonal to the vertical direction of the cart (found in Reynolds figures 6 and 7), and
the second interval is an interval in which each of the two end effectors contacts a vertical member of the vertical members (found in Larsson figures 1a and 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan Daniel Neckel whose telephone number is (571)272-9537. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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.
/NATHAN DANIEL NECKEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights