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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amended claims filed on 06/30/26. Claims 1 and 15 are amended. Claims 1 and 6-20 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-17, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the rejections of
Claims 1, 6, 7, 11-17, and 20 are directed towards the claims as amended. Therefore, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Nagatsuka et al. (US Patent application publication 20220219330A1 hereinafter “Nagatsuka”), in view of Rob Matheson, MIT News Office (MIT News Office, March 5, 2020 https://news.mit.edu/2020/showing-robots-learn-chores-0306 hereinafter “Matheson”) further in view of Stolt et al (Stolt, A., Stenmark, M., Robertsson, A., & Nilsson, K. 2016 Robotic Gift Wrapping or a Glance at the Present State in Santa's Workshop. Paper presented at Reglermöte 2016, Göteborg, Sweden. https://youtu.be/ASEtz2M1RiY hereinafter “Stolt”) and Sugiyama et al. (US Patent application publication 20070152619 A1 hereinafter “Sugiyama”).
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., transporting food/beverages without dropping or spilling ) are not recited in the rejected claims. 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).
In regards to the configuration of end effectors, it is the view of the examiner that a right hand end effector does not have the same configuration as a left hand end effector. A right hand has a configuration that is symmetrically mirrored to a left hand, not equal to. Additionally, it is known to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that a right hand input signal is not able to control a left hand. Furthermore, clauses 4-8 of claim 1 disclose the limitation of moving the plate shaped object with the first end effector, hence single arm prior art like Matheson reads on such limitations.
In regards to claims 8-10, 18, and 19, the examiner believes this is a mere allegation of patentability as Vu et al discloses the claimed plate shaped holding portions.
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, 6, 7, 11-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagatsuka et al. (US Patent application publication 20220219330A1 hereinafter “Nagatsuka”), in view of Rob Matheson, MIT News Office (MIT News Office, March 5, 2020 https://news.mit.edu/2020/showing-robots-learn-chores-0306 hereinafter “Matheson”) further in view of Stolt et al (Stolt, A., Stenmark, M., Robertsson, A., & Nilsson, K. 2016 Robotic Gift Wrapping or a Glance at the Present State in Santa's Workshop. Paper presented at Reglermöte 2016, Göteborg, Sweden. https://youtu.be/ASEtz2M1RiY hereinafter “Stolt”) and Sugiyama et al. (US Patent application publication 20070152619 A1 hereinafter “Sugiyama”) further.
Regarding Claim 1, Nagatsuka discloses in figures 1, and 12 and 0045-0054
A control method (s101-s107) of a robot (10), comprising:
causing a first robot arm (50) and a second robot arm (50) that are provided in the robot to move a first end-effector of the first robot arm (60) and a second end-effector of the second robot arm (60) such that the first end effector and the second end effector are arranged on both sides of a placed plate-shaped object that is positioned on a rack provided on the robot (70);
causing the first robot arm to move the first end effector toward a first end portion of the plate-shaped object to operate the first end effector such that the first end effector grips the first end portion while causing the second robot arm to move the second end effector toward a second end portion of the plate-shaped object, opposite to the first end portion of the plate-shaped object, such that the second end effector restrains the plate-shaped object from sliding while the first end effector grips the first end portion;
Nagatsuka pertains to the control of a transport system comprising of robotic arms with grippers and a housing rack with plate-shaped objects (there trays). Nagatsuka discloses gripping the tray on opposite end portions by detailing “When the hand units 60 of the robot 10 hold a tray housed in the housing rack 70 to take it out, the hand units 60 of the two arm units 50 hold the Y-axial ends of the tray and lift up the tray they hold” (0045). It is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art of dual-arm robotic control that restraining a workpiece from sliding is the goal of stable control of the workpiece. Nagatsuka discloses this level of coordinated control by detailing “It is possible to lift the tray held by the hand units 60 by cooperative operations of these joint units without changing the posture of the upper body of the robot 10, in particular the posture of the arm units 50 that are holding the tray. This greatly contributes to stable taking-out of the tray” (0054).
Nagatsuka is silent on the details of how the robot arms move the tray towards the destination position, place the tray on the destination position, and release the grip of the end effectors. Nagatsuka merely states that the taking-out process is complete and is ready to be repeated with the next tray. However, Matheson teaches the gripping, moving, and releasing of a plate-shaped object. It should be noted that the claimed functions of gripping, moving, and releasing of a plate-shaped object are completed with the first arm and first end effector. Hence, Matheson teaches the gripping, moving, and releasing of a plate-shaped object with a single robotic arm. Specifically, Matheson discloses
causing the first robot arm to move the first end effector toward a destination position to move the plate-shaped object from the rack provided on the robot to then place the plate-shaped object at the destination position by the first end effector.
causing the first robot arm to move the first end effector so as to provide, to the plate- shaped object, an inclination at which the second end portion of the plate-shaped object opposite to the first end portion is lower than the first end portion
causing the first robot arm to move the first end effector so as to lower the plate-shaped object in an inclination state and place the second end portion on a surface of the destination position:
causing the first end effector to release gripping of the plate-shaped object, and
causing the first robot arm to move the first end effector so as to pull out a part of the first end effector from between the plate-shaped object and the surface of the destination position, wherein
Matheson reports on a device developed by the MIT Interactive Robotics Group and the embedded video (0:15-0:16 and 0:21-0:23) shows a robotic arm with end effector moving toward a destination position while gripping a plate at an inclination, lowering the plate onto the destination surface, releasing the grip, and pulling the end effector out. Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Matheson to provide the details of inclined tray movement and end effector grip release during tray placement that are absent from the tray taking-out process disclosed by Nagatsuka. This would ensure that the process of taking a tray from the rack, moving it, and placing it down was in fact complete, thus enabling the process of Nagatsuka to repeat for the next tray.
Nagatsuka in view of Matheson teaches using a first end effector to move a tray at an inclination and subsequently place it at a destination position. Nagatsuka in view of Matheson are silent as to the activity of a second end effector during this process. However, Stolt teaches the pulling out the part of the first end effector further includes causing the second robot arm to move the second end effector so as to press against an upper surface of the second end portion of the plate-shaped object, toward the surface of the destination position, to restrain the plate-shaped object from sliding,
Stolt pertains to a method of controlling an ABB YuMi dual-arm robot. In addition to figure 7, the referenced video (1:20-1:23) shows the second end effector pressing the end portion of the workpiece toward the surface of the destination position while the first end effector pulls out from between the workpiece and the destination surface. Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art to further define the activity of a second end effector during the above mentioned object placement of Nagatsuka in view of Matheson with the method of Stolt in order to secure the placement of the plate shaped object.
Nagatsuka teaches the use of a hand unit to hold the trays, stating “The hand unit of the manipulator apparatus may be of any type, so long as it is capable of holding an object” (0026). Nagatsuka fails to teach the specific holding portions of an end effector. However, Sugiyama teaches
the moving the first end effector toward the first end portion further includes causing the first robot arm to move the first end effector so as to insert a first holding portion (72) of holding portions provided in the first end effector under the plate-shaped object, the first holding portion being immovable with respect to the first end effector,
the operating the first end effector so as to grip the first end portion further includes operating a second holding portion (73) of the holding portions provided in the first end effector so as to sandwich the first end portion of the plate-shaped object by the second holding portion and the first holding portion, the second holding portion being movable with respect to the first end effector, and
the first end effector has a different configuration than the second end effector.
Sugiyama details the holding portions of the end effectors in figure 5 and 0105-0108. The first holding portion 72 is immovable with respect to the end effector 71, while the second holding portion 73 is movable. The holding portions sandwich the plate shaped object, as seen in figures 9 and 16-18B. Sugiyama details that the first end effector 71R has a different configuration than the second end effector 71L by stating “A pair of the grippers 71R, 71L is symmetry in mirror reflections” (0102). Therefore it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to use the end effectors disclosed by Sugiyama as one of the any type of end effectors appropriate for the tray moving system as disclosed by Nagatsuka.
Regarding Claim 6, Nagatsuka in view of Matheson, Stolt, and Sugiyama discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Sugiyama further discloses the first holding portion includes a plate-shaped portion that is to be inserted under the plate-shaped object and extends in a first direction. Sugiyama details the holding portions of the end effectors in figure 5. The first holding portion 72 extends in a first direction and is inserted under the plate shaped object M, as seen in figures 9 and 16-18B.
Regarding Claim 7, Nagatsuka in view of Matheson, Stolt, and Sugiyama discloses all the limitations of clam 6, and Sugiyama further discloses the plate-shaped portion has a dimension larger than a dimension of the second holding portion in a second direction intersecting the first direction.
Sugiyama details the plate shaped portion of the first holding portion 72 in figure 5. It is disclosed in figure 14 that the plate shaped portion is larger than the second holding portion 73 in the X and Y directions.
Regarding Claim 11, Nagatsuka in view of Matheson, Stolt, and Sugiyama discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Sugiyama further discloses wherein the second end effector includes a first holding portion and a second holding portion that are operable to grip an item.
Sugiyama details the holding portions of the symmetrically mirrored left/right end effectors in figure 5 and 0105-0108. The second end effector 71R includes a first holding portion 74 and a second holding portion 73 that are operable to grip an item.
Regarding Claim 12, Nagatsuka in view of Matheson, Stolt, and Sugiyama discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Sugiyama further discloses wherein the plate-shaped object placed on a placement portion of the robot is placed at the destination position.
Sugiyama details in 0217 the movement of plate shaped objects from one location to a destination position “here will be described a placement movement in a case of a height in a placement place being higher than a lower limit of a movable range of the gripper 71 of the robot R. In other words will be described a placement movement in a case of the placement being able to be performed by only a movement of the arm R3 of the robot R.”
Regarding Claim 13, Nagatsuka in view of Matheson, Stolt, and Sugiyama discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Sugiyama further discloses wherein the plate-shaped object placed at a position different from the robot is placed on the placement portion of the robot.
Sugiyama details in 0132 how to transport the tray from a placement position back to the robot “The receiving method decision means 241 decides a receiving method, based on an execution order signal, and goods data memorized in the goods data memory 300. As a receiving method selectable by the robot R of the embodiment, there exist two kinds: one hand receiving and two-hands receiving.”
Regarding Claim 14, , Nagatsuka in view of Matheson, Stolt, and Sugiyama discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Sugiyama further discloses in figures 2, 3, and 0060-0062
A robot, comprising:
a control device (200) configured to execute the control method according to claim 1;
the first robot arm;
the second robot arm;
the first end effector;
the second end effector; and
a moving device on which the first robot arm and the second robot arm are mounted (R2).
Regarding Claim 15, Nagatsuka in view of Matheson, Stolt, and Sugiyama discloses all the limitations of claim 15 in a similar manner as claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 16, Nagatsuka in view of Matheson, Stolt, and Sugiyama discloses all the limitations of claim 16 in a similar manner as claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 17, Nagatsuka in view of Matheson, Stolt, and Sugiyama discloses all the limitations of claim 17 in a similar manner as claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 20, Nagatsuka in view of Matheson, Stolt, and Sugiyama discloses all the limitations of claim 20 in a similar manner as claim 11 above.
Claims 8-10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagatsuka in view of Matheson, Stolt, and Sugiyama, and further in view of Vu et al. (US Patent application publication 20200139558 A1 hereinafter “Vu”).
Regarding Claim 8, Nagatsuka in view of Matheson, Stolt, and Sugiyama discloses all the limitations of claim 6, but the end effector of Sugiyama fails to teach the recess of the first holding portion. However, Vu discloses the first holding portion (100) includes, in a base portion of the plate-shaped portion in a direction opposite to the first direction (110), a recess (130) that is configured to receive an end portion of the plate-shaped object and extends in a second direction intersecting the first direction.
Vu discloses analogous structure in figures 1A, 1B, and 0031 but refers to the recess as a slot “To this end, gripper thumb 120 extends over support plane 111 such that a slot 130 is created between thumb and plane. Slot 130 has a width and depth appropriate for accommodating at least a part of object 2.” Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gripper of Sugiyama with the gripper of Vu which includes a recess to better support a tray or plate-shaped object.
Regarding Claim 9, Nagatsuka in view of Matheson, Stolt, Sugiyama, and Vu teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, and Vu further discloses wherein the plate-shaped portion is bent to narrow the recess toward the base portion of the plate-shaped portion.
Changing the shape of the slot to make it easy to insert the end portion of the plate-shaped object into the recess would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (please see MPEP2144.04(IV)(B) for support of obviousness). The slot presented by Vu is not specifically described as narrowing, but Vu proposes changing the shape in 0039 “Slot 130 may be chosen appropriately to fit the height of the object to be carried.”
Regarding Claim 10, Nagatsuka in view of Matheson, Stolt, Sugiyama, and Vu teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, and Vu further discloses wherein the plate-shaped portion extends in the first direction with respect to an inner surface of the recess facing the plate-shaped portion.
When combining Sugiyama in view of Vu in claim 8 above, the recess is understood to be formed between the first holding portion 72 and the base of the second holding portion 73. Therefore, the plate-shaped portion (the surface of the first holding portion 72) extends away from both the recess and the base of the second holding portion 73 in the X and Y direction (Sugiyama figures 5A-B and 18A-B) and would likewise extend away from the recess in the combination of Sugiyama in view of Vu.
Regarding Claim 18, Nagatsuka in view of Matheson, Stolt, Sugiyama, and Vu discloses all the limitations of claim 18 in a similar manner as claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 19, Nagatsuka in view of Matheson, Stolt, Sugiyama, and Vu discloses all the limitations of claim 18 in a similar manner as claim 9 above.
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