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 .
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Re Claim 20, which depends on claim 15, the limitation “wherein the target contact torque is zero” implies that claim 15 includes the limitation “(iii) a target contact torque between the workpiece edge and the at least one stopper” within its scope. However, claim 15 is written in the alternative “based on any one or more of the following”. Thus, claim 15 does not necessary include the limitation “(iii) a target contact torque between the workpiece edge and the at least one stopper” within its scope because it may include, for example, only “(i) a target trajectory of an angle between the workpiece surface and the distal plane,” in which case claim 20 limitation “wherein the target contact torque is zero” is indefinite. This is true for all combinations of elements (i), (ii), and (iv) that exclude (iii) within claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2010253568 A1 to Fujiwara.
Re Claim 1, Fujiwara teaches:
A material handling system (at least [Title] “Suction Holding Hand”), comprising:
a frame (at least Fig. 2a element 26) defining a first axis (at least Fig 10a element 42a);
a plurality of suction units coupled to the frame and distributed in rotational symmetry about the first axis (at least Fig. 4 element 21), the plurality of suction units collectively defining a distal plane normal to the first axis (at least Fig. 8a element 182), each of the plurality of suction units being operable to provide a suction force in a suction direction parallel to the first axis (at least Fig. 7a element 62); and
at least one stopper (at least Fig. 7a element 62), the at least one stopper being fixedly coupled to the frame and extending beyond the distal plane to provide one or more abutment ends disposed stationary relative to the frame (at least Fig. 10c), the one or more abutment ends defining a transverse offset axis extending through all of the one or more abutment ends, wherein the transverse offset axis is a straight line spaced apart from the first axis and parallel to the distal plane (at least Figs. 7a-b and element 9b, a straight line, i.e. a transverse axis, parallel to 182 and spaced apart from 42a can be drawn through the abutment ends of both the stoppers 62. Note that protrusions 63 do not contact the workpiece are not considered to be stoppers providing abutment ends as defined within the scope of the present claim).
Re Claim 23, Fujiwara teaches:
A method of controlling a material handling system (at least [Title] “Suction Holding Hand”), comprising:
controlling a plurality of suction units coupled to a frame (at least Fig. 2, control unit 39) to provide a suction force on a workpiece surface of a workpiece in a suction direction parallel to a first axis (at least Fig. 10a element 150), the plurality of suction units being distributed in rotational symmetry about the first axis (at least Fig. 4 element 21) and collectively defining a distal plane normal to the first axis (at least Fig. 8a element 182); and
providing at least one stopper in abutment with a workpiece edge of the workpiece (at least Fig. 7a element 62), the at least one stopper being fixedly coupled to the frame and extending beyond the distal plane to provide one or more abutment ends disposed stationary relative to the frame (at least Fig. 10c), the one or more abutment ends defining a transverse offset axis extending through all of the one or more abutment ends, wherein the transverse offset axis is a straight line spaced apart from the first axis and parallel to the distal plane (at least Figs. 7a-b and element 9b, a straight line, i.e. a transverse axis, parallel to 182 and spaced apart from 42a can be drawn through the abutment ends of both the stoppers 62. Note that protrusions 63 do not contact the workpiece are not considered to be stoppers providing abutment ends as defined within the scope of the present claim).
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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 10-15, 20, 22, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara in view of US 20200180876 A1 to Chang.
Re Claim 2, Fujiwara teaches:
The material handling system as recited in claim 1, comprising a controller coupled to the plurality of suction units (at least Fig. 2, control unit 39).
Fujiwara does not explicitly teach:
the controller being configured to control any one of the plurality of suction units independently of any other of the plurality of suction units.
However, Chang teaches:
the controller being configured to control any one of the plurality of suction units (at least Fig. 1 and [0039] “controller 106 may control the fan 122 to reduce a fan speed […] This reduction in suction force”) independently of any other of the plurality of suction units (at least [0030] “a separate independently controlled fan 122 […] segregation allows for individual control of an amount of suction force”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material handling system taught by Fujiwara with the independent control taught by Chang with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “This segregation allows for individual control of an amount of suction force for a given zone or region by preventing cross contamination of suction force between the zones. Stated differently, the zone divider 144 allows the common housing 118 to have discrete vacuum suction force zones by compartmentalizing the suction force generated by a fan (or fans) in a specific zone from the suction force generated by a fan (or fans) in a second specific zone” (Chang [0030]).
Re Claim 3, the combination of Fujiwara and Chang teaches:
The material handling system as recited in claim 2 (detailed with respect to claim 2).
Chang further teaches:
wherein the plurality of suction units are controllable independently of one another to provide a variable net suction force in the suction direction (at least Fig. 1 and [0039] “controller 106 may control the fan 122 to reduce a fan speed […] This reduction in suction force”).
Re Claim 4, the combination of Fujiwara and Chang teaches:
The material handling system as recited in claim 2 (detailed with respect to claim 2).
Fujiwara further teaches:
the fan being controllable by the controller to operate in any one of two directions to provide a torque in a corresponding one of two torque directions (at least [0051] of the translation “the swirl flow generated in the swirl flow generation chamber 181 swirls clockwise as viewed from the suction holding surface 182 side” and [0053] of the translation “the two suction pads 21 positioned generate a
swirling flow swirling counterclockwise”.).
Chang further teaches:
wherein the frame defines a plurality of chambers, each of the plurality of suction units comprises a fan disposed in a respective one of the chambers (at least Fig. 1 and [0039] “controller 106 may control the fan 122 to reduce a fan speed […] This reduction in suction force”).
Re Claim 5, the combination of Fujiwara and Chang teaches:
The material handling system as recited in claim 4 (detailed with respect to claim 4).
Chang further teaches:
wherein the plurality of suction units are controllable independently of one another to provide a variable net torque (at least Fig. 1 and [0039] “controller 106 may control the fan 122 to reduce a fan speed […] This reduction in suction force”).
Re Claim 10, the combination of Fujiwara and Chang teaches:
The material handling system as recited in claim 2 (detailed with respect to claim 2).
Chang further teaches:
wherein the plurality of suction units in operation provides a suction force on a workpiece in the suction direction towards the distal plane, and wherein a workpiece surface of the workpiece facing the distal plane is spaced apart from the distal plane by an abutment of the one or more abutment ends with a workpiece edge of the workpiece (at least Fig. 2 and [0028] “The upper surface 120 also includes a number of suction fans 122a-122h mounted thereto. Each of the fans 122a-122h is able to provide a suction/vacuum force (e.g., a reduced pressure relative to ambient conditions) to pick up an item 108 of FIG. 1. Further, each of the fans 122a-122h is associated with an independently actuatable pick-up zone 124a-124h”).
Re Claim 11, the combination of Fujiwara and Chang teaches:
The material handling system as recited in claim 10 (detailed with respect to claim 10).
Chang further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to controllably vary a spacing between the workpiece surface and the distal plane by varying a respective suction force of each of the plurality of suction units (at least [0035] “distance generated between the top surface 138 of the engaging plate 128 and the bottom surface 134 of the housing 118 by movement of the actuators 126 may be any distance. In an exemplary aspect, a distance created between a first position and a second position is 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm, 5 mm, 10 mm, 15 mm, 20 mm, 25 mm, 30 mm, 35 mm, 40 mm, 45 mm, 50 mm, or any distance therebetween. The distance of separation between the engaging plate 128 and the housing 118 may be used to adjust an amount of suction force experienced at the bottom surface 132 that is generated by the fans 122” and [0039] “controller 106 may control the fan 122 to reduce a fan speed […] This reduction in suction force”).
Re Claim 12, the combination of Fujiwara and Chang teaches:
The material handling system as recited in claim 10 (detailed with respect to claim 10).
Fujiwara further teaches:
wherein the plurality of suction units comprises four suction units distributed in rotational symmetry about the first axis (at least Fig. 4), and wherein the controller is configured to operate two diametrically opposing ones of the four suction units to produce respective clockwise torque (at least [0053] “The swirling direction of the swirling flow generated by the suction pad 21 generates a swirling flow in which the two suction pads 21 positioned diagonally among the four suction pads 21 swirl clockwise”), and wherein the controller is configured to operate another two diametrically opposing ones of the four section units to produce respective anti-clockwise torque (at least [0053] “and the
other diagonal. The four suction pads 21 are arranged so that the two suction pads 21 positioned generate a swirling flow swirling counterclockwise”).
Re Claim 13, the combination of Fujiwara and Chang teaches:
The material handling system as recited in claim 10 (detailed with respect to claim 10).
Fujiwara further teaches:
wherein the frame comprises a straight side, and wherein the at least one stopper comprises two stoppers coupled to the straight side such that each one of the two stoppers forms a point contact with the workpiece edge (at least Figs. 7-8).
Re Claim 14, the combination of Fujiwara and Chang teaches:
The material handling system as recited in claim 10 (detailed with respect to claim 10).
Chang further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to control each of the plurality of suction units to produce a respective suction force and a respective torque, and wherein each of the respective suction force and the respective torque of any one of the plurality of suction units is independent of forces produced by any other of the plurality of suction units (at least [0030] “a separate independently controlled fan 122 […] segregation allows for individual control of an amount of suction force”).
Re Claim 15, the combination of Fujiwara and Chang teaches:
The material handling system as recited in claim 14 (detailed with respect to claim 14).
Chang further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to control the plurality of suction units based on any one or more of the following: (i) a target trajectory of an angle between the workpiece surface and the distal plane, (ii) a target contact force between the workpiece and the at least one stopper, (iii) a target contact torque between the workpiece edge and the at least one stopper, and (iv) at least one kinematics parameter of the frame (at least [0035] “distance generated between the top surface 138 of the engaging plate 128 and the bottom surface 134 of the housing 118 by movement of the actuators 126 may be any distance. In an exemplary aspect, a distance created between a first position and a second position is 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm, 5 mm, 10 mm, 15 mm, 20 mm, 25 mm, 30 mm, 35 mm, 40 mm, 45 mm, 50 mm, or any distance therebetween. The distance of separation between the engaging plate 128 and the housing 118 may be used to adjust an amount of suction force experienced at the bottom surface 132 that is generated by the fans 122” and [0039] “controller 106 may control the fan 122 to reduce a fan speed […] This reduction in suction force”).
Re Claim 20, the combination of Fujiwara and Chang teaches:
The material handling system as recited in claim 15 (detailed with respect to claim 15).
Chang further teaches:
wherein the target contact torque is zero (at least [0029] “turning them on and off to provide a suction force”).
Re Claim 22, the combination of Fujiwara and Chang teaches:
The material handling system as recited in claim 14 (detailed with respect to claim 14).
Fujiwara further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to vary a contact force and a contact torque by controlling at least one of the respective torque, and wherein the contact force and the contact torque are at an interface between the workpiece edge and the at least one stopper (at least [0053] “The swirling direction of the swirling flow generated by the suction pad 21 generates a swirling flow in which the two suction pads 21 positioned diagonally among the four suction pads 21 swirl clockwise and the other diagonal. The four suction pads 21 are arranged so that the two suction pads 21 positioned generate a swirling flow swirling counterclockwise”).
Re Claim 24, the combination of Fujiwara and Chang teaches:
The method as recited in claim 23 (detailed with respect to claim 23).
Chang further teaches:
wherein each one of the plurality of suction units is controlled independently of any other of the plurality of suction units to keep the workpiece surface spaced apart from the distal plane by a spacing (at least [0030] “a separate independently controlled fan 122 […] segregation allows for individual control of an amount of suction force”), wherein the spacing is controllably variable by varying a respective suction force of each of the plurality of suction units (at least Fig. 1 and [0039] “controller 106 may control the fan 122 to reduce a fan speed […] This reduction in suction force”).
Re Claim 25, the combination of Fujiwara and Chang teaches:
The method as recited in claim 24 (detailed with respect to claim 24).
Chang further teaches:
wherein each one of the plurality of suction units is controlled based on any one or more of the following: (i) a target trajectory of an angle between the workpiece surface and the distal plane, (ii) a target contact force between the workpiece and the at least one stopper, (iii) a target contact torque between the workpiece and the at least one stopper, (iv) at least one kinematics parameter of the frame (at least [0035] “distance generated between the top surface 138 of the engaging plate 128 and the bottom surface 134 of the housing 118 by movement of the actuators 126 may be any distance. In an exemplary aspect, a distance created between a first position and a second position is 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm, 5 mm, 10 mm, 15 mm, 20 mm, 25 mm, 30 mm, 35 mm, 40 mm, 45 mm, 50 mm, or any distance therebetween. The distance of separation between the engaging plate 128 and the housing 118 may be used to adjust an amount of suction force experienced at the bottom surface 132 that is generated by the fans 122” and [0039] “controller 106 may control the fan 122 to reduce a fan speed […] This reduction in suction force”).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara in view of Chang and further in view of US 20170210572 A1 to Alberti.
Re Claim 6, the combination of Fujiwara and Chang teaches:
The material handling system as recited in claim 2 (detailed with respect to claim 2).
The combination of Fujiwara and Chang does not explicitly teach:
comprising a distance sensor coupled to the frame, wherein the distance sensor is disposed spaced apart from any one of the at least one stopper.
However, Alberti teaches:
comprising a distance sensor coupled to the frame, wherein the distance sensor is disposed spaced apart from any one of the at least one stopper (at least Figs. 2a-c and [0060] “detection and management unit U”.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material handling system taught by the combination of Fujiwara and Chang with the detection means taught by Alberti with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it “after analyzing the specified parameters and creating the homogeneous sub-groups, is able to selectively drive the groups B, C, D of gripper heads 3 in order to pick them up” (Alberti [0060]).
Re Claim 7, the combination of Fujiwara, Chang, and Alberti teaches:
The material handling system as recited in claim 6 (detailed with respect to claim 6).
Fujiwara further teaches:
wherein the distance sensor is disposed diametrically opposite the transverse offset axis (at least Figs. 2a-c and [0060] “detection and management unit U”.).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara in view of Chang and further in view of US 20180181136 A1 to Loosararian.
Re Claim 8, the combination of Fujiwara and Chang teaches:
The material handling system as recited in claim 2 (detailed with respect to claim 2).
The combination of Fujiwara and Chang does not explicitly teach:
comprising an inertial measurement unit coupled to the frame, wherein the inertial measurement unit is configured to measure at least one kinematics parameter of the frame.
However, Loosararian teaches:
comprising an inertial measurement unit coupled to the frame, wherein the inertial measurement unit is configured to measure at least one kinematics parameter of the frame (at least [0152] “an inertial measurement unit (e.g., measuring and/or calculating utilizing an accelerometer and/or gyroscope)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material handling system taught by the combination of Fujiwara and Chang with the detection means taught by Loosararian with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “values may be combined to determine the position information 3604—for example in 3-D space without further information, four distance measurements are ordinarily required to determine a specific position value. However, utilizing other information, such as a region of the inspection surface that the inspection robot is operating on (e.g., which pipe the inspection robot is climbing), an overlay of the industrial surface over the measurement space, a distance traveled from a reference point, a distance to a reference point, etc., the number of distance measurements required to determine a position value can be reduced to three, two, one, or even eliminated and still position information 3604 is determinable” (Loosararian [0152]).
Re Claim 9, the combination of Fujiwara, Chang, and Loosararian teaches:
The material handling system as recited in claim 8 (detailed with respect to claim 8).
Chang further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to independently control the plurality of suction units (at least Fig. 1 and [0039] “controller 106 may control the fan 122 to reduce a fan speed […] This reduction in suction force”) based on the at least one kinematics parameter of the frame (at least Fig. 1 and [0025] “the controller 106 is logically coupled by a coupling 112 with the vision system 110, which may be optional in an example. The controller 106 may receive information from the vision system 110 to determine an item to be picked up, a position of an item to be picked up, a location of an item relative to the pick-up head assembly 116 (prior to or post pick up). Further, the controller 106 may be functional to coordinate a position of the mechanical arm 102. As such, the controller 106 (or a plurality of controllers) are effective to control and coordinate one or more components/elements of the system 100 to aid in the pickup, positioning, and placing of an item by the system 100”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/GEORGE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights