DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amended claims filed on 03/23/26. Claims 1-3, and 7-10 are amended. Claims 4-6 are deleted. Claims 1-3, and 7-10 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the rejections of
claims 1-10 are directed towards the claims as amended. Therefore, a new ground of rejection of claims 1,2 and 7-10 is made in view of Larsson (US Patent application 20230415331 A1 hereinafter “Larsson”) further in view of Reynolds et al (US Patent application 20170072558 A1 hereinafter “Reynolds”). Additionally, a new ground of rejection of the dependent claim 3 is made in view of Larsson and Reynolds, further in view of Hallock et al (US Patent application 20200171650 A1 hereinafter “Hallock”). Specifically, the Examiner believes that the Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-11 does not adequately overcome how “the robot 18 uses the motorized latch 38 to draw the cart 12 toward the robot 18.” (Reynolds 0083) discloses “to draw the cart toward the robot” of Applicant’s claim 1. Additionally, the Examiner believes that the Applicant’s arguments on page 12 does not adequately overcome how “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.” (Hallock 0083) discloses “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” of Applicant’s claim 3. The limitation of a support plate attached to the obstacles of the cart in the amended claim 1 is a new limitation that was not previously addressed and will be addressed in the rejection below.
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 (US Patent application 20230415331 A1 hereinafter “Larsson”) in view of Reynolds et al (US Patent application 20170072558 A1 hereinafter “Reynolds”).
Regarding Claim 1, Larsson discloses
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;
Larsson describes the moving of the end effectors in figure 1b and 0075 “Due to the kinematics of the manipulators 30, a horizontal distance 34 between the grippers 32 can be changed.” 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). 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.
Larsson discloses using two robot arms to engage with a cart but is silent on the relative distance between the cart and the robot. However, Reynolds teaches causing the two robot arms to draw the cart toward the robot. Additionally, as detailed above Larsson discloses in the state where the interval between the two end effectors is the second interval;.
Reynolds pertains to the control of an apparatus for autonomous cart transport and discloses in figure 3 and 0083 “the robot 18 uses the motorized latch 38 to draw the cart 12 toward the robot 18.” Thus, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to employ the method of drawing the cart toward the robot disclosed by Reynolds to specify the relative distance between the robot and cart disclosed by Larsson with the intended goal of reducing the forces and moments between the cart and robot.
Larsson further discloses moving the robot together with the cart in a state where the interval between the two end effectors is the second interval; Larsson describes moving the robot together with the cart in 0020 “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.”
Larsson further discloses wherein the cart includes obstacles configured to impede the end effectors from moving such that the interval exceeds the second interval on the gripping portion; As shown in figures 3-6, the vertical members attached to a handle are a type of obstacle.
Larsson further discloses in figures 1a and 1b at least one support plate configured to support objects (42), the at least one support plate being connected to an end portion of the obstacles in a vertical direction of the cart (44).
As described above, Larsson discloses using two robot arms to engage with a cart but is silent on the relative distance between the cart and the robot. However, Reynolds teaches the two robot arms draw the cart toward the robot and engage the cart with the robot. Furthermore, Reynolds teaches in figures 5 and 15 by pressing a movable moving device (20) of the robot (18) against an outermost face of a recessed portion (14) of the support plate (50) positioned between the end portion of the obstacles (116-1, 116-2), the recessed portion being recessed in a direction orthogonal to the vertical direction of the cart. Thus, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the cart design of Reynolds in order to reduce the forces and moments applied to the robotic grippers of Larsson.
Regarding Claim 2, Larsson in view of Reynolds 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 Reynolds 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 Reynolds 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 Reynolds 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
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, move the robot with the cart, and the cart includes obstacles. Additionally, Larsson in view of Reynolds discloses drawing the cart toward the robot. Specifically, Larsson discloses
the control device is configured to: (found in 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 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 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 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 Reynolds 0083); 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 0020), and
the cart includes:
obstacles 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 figures 3-6).
at least one support plate configured to support objects, the at least one support plate being connected to an end portion of the obstacles in a vertical direction of the cart (found in Reynolds figures 5 and 15), and
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 the obstacles, the recessed portion being recessed in a direction orthogonal to the vertical direction of the cart (found in Reynolds figures 5 and 15).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson in view of Reynolds, further in view of Hallock et al (US Patent application 20200171650 A1 hereinafter “Hallock”).
Regarding Claim 3, Larsson in view of Reynolds discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and Larsson further discloses in 0095 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”. 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 described in figure 7 and 0083 “For example, 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.” Thus, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application 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 position the cart with respect to the robot.
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