DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 3 and 5 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.
Claim 3 recites, in relevant part,
wherein the reference plane is a plane where a height serving as an absolute value in a height direction is uniform in an area where the target object is movable from a movement source to the movement destination.
It is unclear what is being claimed. The claim seems to merely indicate that the reference plane is a plane, and that some height value is uniform in the area where the target object is transported. It is unclear what height value this refers to, and the definition of the reference plane as a plane appears redundant. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets these limitations to indicate that the plane is defined at a specified height, and that the plane is parallel to the horizon.
Claim 5 recites, in relevant part,
wherein the processor is configured to set a restriction to differ according to the height at a different point on the reference plane
It is unclear how the restriction of claim 5 is supposed to differ. It is also unclear what is being restricted. Claim 5 states that a restriction differs "according to the height at a different point on the reference plane," but it is unclear which point on the reference plane is "a different point." Neither claim 1 nor claim 5 refers to any other points, whether they be on the reference plane or otherwise. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets these limitations to indicate that multiple height restrictions may exist in the x and y directions of the plane, where x and y are the dimensions spanned by the plane, and a z direction normal to the plane is parallel to the lifting height.
For the above reasons, claims 3 and 5 are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a robot system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites
A robot system comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
set a restriction on a range of a height to which a target object is lifted using a reference plane as a reference; and
calculate a path along which the target object is moved to a movement destination based on the set restriction
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “setting a restriction…” and “calculate a path…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (a user of the system) determining a height restriction relative to an arbitrary planar surface, and determining a travel path which maintains the height of the target object. Because the claim is so broad, the claim could further encompass the person physically lifting an object to a determined height relative to a planar surface, and mentally planning where and how to move the object while maintaining the height relative to the planar surface. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A robot system comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
set a restriction on a range of a height to which a target object is lifted using a reference plane as a reference; and
calculate a path along which the target object is moved to a movement destination based on the set restriction
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a memory…” and “a processor…”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the processor and memory merely automate the steps of “set a restriction” and “calculate a path,” therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The processor and memory are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim I smore than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (process or and memory).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discusses above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processor and memory amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 10-11 recite substantially the same subject matter as claim 1, but are claimed as a method, and a non-transitory recording medium storing a program, respectively. These claims are ineligible for the same reasons as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Specifically:
Claim 2 states that the reference plane may take more than one form, which merely expands on the abstract idea.
Claim 3 states that the reference plane is a plane (unclear – see remarks with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 112(b)). This and the limitation of a height being an absolute value does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 4 states that the processor receives the restriction on the height via a GUI. This amounts to mere data-gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 5 appears to claim that multiple height restrictions may exist along the plane (see remarks with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 112(b)). This merely expands on the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 6 and 7 merely state the presence of objects when the target object height is greater than or equal to a threshold. This merely expands on the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 8 and 9 implement additional ideas wherein the travel path is defined using generic computing equipment.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
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)(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) 1-3, 5, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsuzuki (US-20210371215-A1).
Claim 1
Tsuzuki teaches
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
(Tsuzuki - [0095] The controller 10, which is configured to control operations of the robot arm 4, is comprised of, for example, a computer that includes a central processing unit (CPU), i.e., a processor, 10a and a storage unit 10b comprised of, for example, a ROM and a RAM. The CPU 10a of the controller 10 for example can run one or more programs, i.e., program instructions, stored in the storage unit 10b, thus controlling operations of the robot arm 4.)
set a restriction on a range of a height to which a target object is lifted using a reference plane as a reference; and
(Tsuzuki - [0085] Specifically, the controller 10 performs a pick-up process that
…
[0088] (3) Instructs the suction mechanisms 9a to suction the workpiece 2 when the workpiece 2 reaches the predetermined pickup position of the belt conveyor apparatus 3 above the conveyor belt 3a, thus picking up the workpiece 2
[0089] Next, the controller 10 performs a packing process that
[0090] (1) Instructs the robot arm 4, i.e., the arm actuating mechanism AM, to move the hand 9 of the robot arm 4 upward to a predetermined height that is, for example, higher by a preset length than the height of the top of the container 5)
EXAMINER NOTE: The top of the container 5 acts as a reference plane. The lifting height is restricted in that the lifting height must be higher than the container.
calculate a path along which the target object is moved to a movement destination based on the set restriction
(Tsuzuki - [0097] More specifically, the CPU 10a of the controller 10 is configured to run predetermined programs stored in the storage unit 10b to thereby implement various functions including a position specifying unit 11 and an operation controlling unit 12.
[0098] The position specifying unit 11 and the operation controlling unit 12 perform, through the driver 10c, feedback control of the motors and/or brake mechanisms of the arm actuating mechanism AM in accordance with the received feedback signals sent from the encoders of the arm actuating mechanism AM, thus causing each arm and screw to automatically perform previously programmed motions.)
EXAMINER NOTE: While the motions are "previously programmed," the position specifying unit must perform feedback control in order to perform the correct motions (calculate a path along which the target object is moved)
Claim 2
Tsuzuki teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Tsuzuki further teaches
wherein in an area where the target object is movable from a movement source to the movement destination, the reference plane is
a surface of an obstacle capable of being confirmed in a height direction in an area where the obstacle is present
and a floor surface in an area where the obstacle is absent.
(Tsuzuki - [0149] Next, the CPU 10a serves as the operation controlling unit 12 to instruct, through the driver 10c, the robot arm 4 to move the hand 9 of the robot arm 4 straight downward until the picked-up workpiece 2 reaches a predetermined height position in step S5. The predetermined height position is programmed to be set to be higher by a margin height higher than a reference point. The reference point represents one of
[0150] (1) The top of the uppermost workpiece 2 packed in the selected packing position specified by the position specifying unit 11 if at least one workpiece 2 has been packed in the selected packing position specified by the position specifying unit 11
[0151] (2) The bottom part 6b of the sheet 6 if no workpieces 2 have been packed in the selected packing position specified by the position specifying unit 11
[0153] The above description determines a value of the height position for each packing position, but can commonly determine a value of the height position for all the packing positions.
[0154] Following the operation in step S5, the CPU 10a serves as the operation controlling unit 12 to instruct, through the driver 10c, the robot arm 4 to release the suctioning of the picked-up workpiece 2 to thereby detach the picked-up workpiece 2 from the suction mechanisms 9a, so that the detached workpiece 2 is located at the packing position specified by the region specifying unit 11 in step S6.)
EXAMINER NOTE: When the object is placed, the lifting height is restricted based on either the upper surface of a workpiece (obstacle) or the bottom of the container (floor).
Claim 3
Tsuzuki teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Tsuzuki further teaches
wherein the reference plane is a plane where a height serving as an absolute value in a height direction is uniform in an area where the target object is movable from a movement source to the movement destination.
EXAMINER NOTE: See rejection of claim 1, and comments above with regards to rejection of claim 3 under 112(b). The top of container 5 acts as the reference plane. The top of the container is a uniform height which may define a horizontal plane given any three points on the upper perimeter. The container is shown Figs. 1, 3, 5, or 6.
Claim 5
Tsuzuki teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Tsuzuki further teaches
wherein the processor is configured to set a restriction to differ according to the height at a different point on the reference plane
(Tsuzuki - [0149] Next, the CPU 10a serves as the operation controlling unit 12 to instruct, through the driver 10c, the robot arm 4 to move the hand 9 of the robot arm 4 straight downward until the picked-up workpiece 2 reaches a predetermined height position in step S5. The predetermined height position is programmed to be set to be higher by a margin height higher than a reference point. The reference point represents one of
[0150] (1) The top of the uppermost workpiece 2 packed in the selected packing position specified by the position specifying unit 11 if at least one workpiece 2 has been packed in the selected packing position specified by the position specifying unit 11
[0151] (2) The bottom part 6b of the sheet 6 if no workpieces 2 have been packed in the selected packing position specified by the position specifying unit 11
[0153] The above description determines a value of the height position for each packing position, …)
EXAMINER NOTE: Here, the robot places the picked item into the container 5, which is lined by sheet 6. If the item is placed into an unoccupied area of container 5, the height margin is less than if the item is placed on top of another packed item. Therefore, the restriction differs based on the placement of the item in the x and y axes (see Fig. 2). See claim interpretation notes outlined with regards to the 112(b) rejection of claim 5.
Claim 10
Tsuzuki teaches
setting a restriction on a range of a height to which a target object is lifted using a reference plane as a reference; and
(Tsuzuki - [0085] Specifically, the controller 10 performs a pick-up process that
…
[0088] (3) Instructs the suction mechanisms 9a to suction the workpiece 2 when the workpiece 2 reaches the predetermined pickup position of the belt conveyor apparatus 3 above the conveyor belt 3a, thus picking up the workpiece 2
[0089] Next, the controller 10 performs a packing process that
[0090] (1) Instructs the robot arm 4, i.e., the arm actuating mechanism AM, to move the hand 9 of the robot arm 4 upward to a predetermined height that is, for example, higher by a preset length than the height of the top of the container 5)
EXAMINER NOTE: The top of the container 5 acts as a reference plane. The lifting height is restricted in that the lifting height must be higher than the container.
calculating a path along which the target object is moved to a movement destination based on the set restriction.
(Tsuzuki - [0097] More specifically, the CPU 10a of the controller 10 is configured to run predetermined programs stored in the storage unit 10b to thereby implement various functions including a position specifying unit 11 and an operation controlling unit 12.
[0098] The position specifying unit 11 and the operation controlling unit 12 perform, through the driver 10c, feedback control of the motors and/or brake mechanisms of the arm actuating mechanism AM in accordance with the received feedback signals sent from the encoders of the arm actuating mechanism AM, thus causing each arm and screw to automatically perform previously programmed motions.)
EXAMINER NOTE: While the motions are "previously programmed," the position specifying unit must perform feedback control in order to perform the correct motions (calculate a path along which the target object is moved)
Claim 11
Tsuzuki teaches
A non-transitory recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to
(Tsuzuki - [0095] The controller 10, which is configured to control operations of the robot arm 4, is comprised of, for example, a computer that includes a central processing unit (CPU), i.e., a processor, 10a and a storage unit 10b comprised of, for example, a ROM and a RAM. The CPU 10a of the controller 10 for example can run one or more programs, i.e., program instructions, stored in the storage unit 10b, thus controlling operations of the robot arm 4.)
set a restriction on a range of a height to which a target object is lifted using a reference plane as a reference; and
(Tsuzuki - [0085] Specifically, the controller 10 performs a pick-up process that
…
[0088] (3) Instructs the suction mechanisms 9a to suction the workpiece 2 when the workpiece 2 reaches the predetermined pickup position of the belt conveyor apparatus 3 above the conveyor belt 3a, thus picking up the workpiece 2
[0089] Next, the controller 10 performs a packing process that
[0090] (1) Instructs the robot arm 4, i.e., the arm actuating mechanism AM, to move the hand 9 of the robot arm 4 upward to a predetermined height that is, for example, higher by a preset length than the height of the top of the container 5)
EXAMINER NOTE: The top of the container 5 acts as a reference plane. The lifting height is restricted in that the lifting height must be higher than the container.
calculate a path along which the target object is moved to a movement destination based on the set restriction
(Tsuzuki - [0097] More specifically, the CPU 10a of the controller 10 is configured to run predetermined programs stored in the storage unit 10b to thereby implement various functions including a position specifying unit 11 and an operation controlling unit 12.
[0098] The position specifying unit 11 and the operation controlling unit 12 perform, through the driver 10c, feedback control of the motors and/or brake mechanisms of the arm actuating mechanism AM in accordance with the received feedback signals sent from the encoders of the arm actuating mechanism AM, thus causing each arm and screw to automatically perform previously programmed motions.)
EXAMINER NOTE: While the motions are "previously programmed," the position specifying unit must perform feedback control in order to perform the correct motions (calculate a path along which the target object is moved)
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) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikushima (US-20110184544-A1).
Claim 4
Tsuzuki teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Tsuzuki may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination, but Ikushima teaches
wherein the processor is configured to receive a restriction on the height via a graphical user interface (GUI); and the processor is configured to set a restriction on the height
(Ikushima - [0016] More specifically, a first aspect of the present invention provides a program for preparing a moving program of a working robot which performs desired work by moving a holder holding a working apparatus and a workpiece relatively to each other, the program comprising a step of displaying a text entry screen on which movement information of the working apparatus can be input on the character basis, a step of displaying a figure entry screen on which movement information of the working apparatus can be input as a path on a two-dimensional plane in correlation with height information,
[0067] The function of the Z-axis bar 90 is described in connection with the example of FIG. 3. The Z-axis bar 90 in FIG. 3 represents information in the Z-axis (i.e., the height information) …
[0070] While the procedure for changing the Z-directional height on the figure entry screen 72 has been described above, it is a matter of course that the value indicative of the Z-directional height can be directly edited on the text entry screen 71.)
Tsuzuki's programs are predetermined during execution, and Tsuzuki does not discuss the creation of said programs. However, as evidenced by Ikushima, it is known in the art to provide a graphical user interface to aid in the creation of robot motion programs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize Ikushima's GUI with Tsuzuki's system in order to provide a means for creating the motion programs. Ikushima's GUI provides the operator with a convenient display to allow visual verification of distances.
(Ikushima - [0121] The gist of the present invention resides in displaying the distance between the working apparatus mounted to a holder and the workpiece in a visually recognizable manner so that the operator can easily determine whether the distance is appropriate.)
Claim 8
Tsuzuki teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Tsuzuki may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination, but Ikushima teaches
wherein the processor is configured to set a range of a path along which the target object is moved to the movement destination designated by a user as a new restriction via a graphical user interface (GUI).
(Ikushima - [0057] Programming work by a user is performed using a text entry screen 71 and a figure entry screen 72. The user can describe the moving program 100 by inputting, from the keyboard 31, a command, etc. to the text entry screen 71 which is displayed on the monitor 33. Also, the moving program 100 can be automatically generated with the user drawing a figure on the figure entry screen 72, which is displayed on the monitor 33, by using the mouse 32.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The path may be defined by the user through various entry screens (GUI) via entering text or by drawing.
Tsuzuki's programs are predetermined during execution, and Tsuzuki does not discuss the creation of said programs. However, as evidenced by Ikushima, it is known in the art to provide a graphical user interface to aid in the creation of robot motion programs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize Ikushima's GUI with Tsuzuki's system in order to provide a means for creating the motion programs. Ikushima's GUI provides the operator with a convenient display to allow visual verification of distances.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyagawa (US-20240255956-A1, claiming foreign priority to JP-2021-095647, filed 6/8/2021).
Claim 9
Tsuzuki teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Tsuzuki alone may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination. However, Miyagawa teaches
wherein the processor is configured to set a range of a path along which the target object is moved to the movement destination designated by a user as a new restriction using a feature object.
(Miyagawa - [0121] … an “approach area” which is a work allowable area where the robot 10 is determined to be able to safely execute work by driving the arm 12 and the hand 13 in the work area.
[0211] The approach area generator 205 inputs user input information necessary for generating the approach area … By using the location and area of the work target input by the user, a work motion, and the obstacle information, an area in which the robot 10 can perform a scheduled work on the work target object without interfering with (contacting) the obstacle is generated as a “preset approach area”.
[0299] The user terminal 30 uses the location and area of the work target input by the user 20, the work motion, and the obstacle information to decide, the an “approach area”, an area where the robot 10 can perform scheduled work on the work target object without interfering with (contacting) the obstacle.
[0301] The user 20 inputs the obstacle information, the work target information, and the work motion information via the user interface (UI) 201, and after completion of the input of each of these information, operates an approach area generation instruction icon displayed on the user interface (UI) 201. Then, the approach area generator 205 starts approach area generation processing.)
Tsuzuki's programs are predetermined during execution, and Tsuzuki does not discuss the creation of said programs. However, as evidenced by Miyagawa, it is known in the art for users to designate areas in which the robot is allowed to move freely. Miyagawa's system generates approach areas (areas where work is deemed safe an allowable) based on obstacle information (feature objects) input by the user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to limit the motion of Tsuzuki's robot based on additional obstacles, as taught by Miyagawa, in order to ensure the robot's range of motion does not pose a danger.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuckerman (US-20210256467-A1) in view of Andersson (SE 537265 C2) and Fritz (US-20180311820-A1).
Claim 1
Zuckerman teaches
set a restriction on a range of a height to which a target object is lifted using a reference plane as a reference; and
(Zuckerman - [0208] In one embodiment, said grabbing is done so as to place a bottom of the disposable package 11 at a height of no more than 1 (one) meter above ground, and no less than 10 (ten) centimeters above ground during said carriage; and said releasing results in said disposable package 11 with the consumer item inside 93-ci falling a short distance of between 10 centimeters and one meter to the ground, in which a survival of the consumer item when the disposable package hits the ground is facilitates by at least one of: (i) said distance being short, and (ii) said disposable package comprising a soft and/or collapsible cushioning material 94-cm (FIG. 17D) that is an integral part of the disposable package 11 and/or that is attached to the bottom side of the disposable package.)
Zuckerman teaches the use of a processing unit
(Zuckerman - [0082] In one embodiment, the control sub-system 4, 6, 7, 8 is further configured to use said three-dimensional representation, said actuators 6, 7, and said processing unit 8 in conjunction with a set of public-road self-driving directives)
Though Zuckerman does not state precisely what comprises the processing unit, Examiner believes this is sufficient to satisfy the limitations of a processor and memory. However, for the sake of thoroughness, Examiner points to Fritz to illustrate that the use of a processor and memory for robotic control systems is notoriously old and well-known in the art. Fritz, like Zuckerman, teaches a delivery robot, which explicitly utilizes a processor and memory for route planning, and teaches
a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
(Fritz - [0059] Various forms of media may be involved in carrying one or more sequences of one or more instructions to processor 404 for execution. For example, the instructions may initially be carried on a magnetic disk or solid-state drive of a remote computer. The remote computer can load the instructions into its dynamic memory and send the instructions over a telephone line using a modem. A modem local to computer system 400 can receive the data on the telephone line and use an infra-red transmitter to convert the data to an infra-red signal. An infra-red detector can receive the data carried in the infra-red signal and appropriate circuitry can place the data on bus 402. Bus 402 carries the data to main memory 406, from which processor 404 retrieves and executes the instructions. The instructions received by main memory 406 may optionally be stored on storage device 410 either before or after execution by processor 404.)
Zuckerman mentions autonomous driving for delivering cargo, but does not explicitly discuss the calculation of a travel path. However, Andersson teaches
calculate a path along which the target object is moved to a movement destination based on the set restriction
(Andersson - [0015] … The vehicle then does not need to drive around the obstacle, but can make a minor deviation from a current trajectory that the vehicle is following. This saves time and also fuel. If the vehicle is driving in a narrow passage, it may also be impossible to drive around the obstacle because there are obstructing walls. By straddling the obstacle, you can still avoid hitting the obstacle even though the vehicle is in the narrow passage.
[0021] … By comparing the … the height of the obstacle 9 with the ground clearance of the vehicle 2, it can be determined whether the obstacle 9 is of such a size that the vehicle 2 can straddle the obstacle 9 without running over the obstacle 9.
If the result of the analysis shows that the obstacle 9 can be straddled by the vehicle 2, the processing unit 11 is adapted to determine a first trajectory 19 for the vehicle 2 based at least on the position of the vehicle 2, the position of the obstacle 9 and information about the ground clearance of the vehicle 2, so that the vehicle 2 straddles the obstacle 9.
According to one embodiment, the processing unit 11 is also adapted to receive a trajectory signal cp2 indicating a current trajectory 18 of the vehicle 2, and determine a first trajectory 19 of the vehicle 2 also based on this current trajectory 18.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zuckerman's delivery robot with Andersson's considerations of ground clearance when planning routes. Implementing Andersson's teaching allows efficient trajectories to be generated such that the vehicle may straddle an obstacle rather than go around it when there is sufficient clearance, which saves time and energy during transit.
Claim 6
The combination of Zuckerman, Fritz, and Andersson teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. As shown above, Zuckerman also teaches
further comprising a cushioning material in an area where movement of the target object in a height direction is predicted to be greater than or equal to a threshold value.
(Zuckerman - [0208] In one embodiment, said grabbing is done so as to place a bottom of the disposable package 11 at a height of no more than 1 (one) meter above ground, and no less than 10 (ten) centimeters above ground during said carriage; and said releasing results in said disposable package 11 with the consumer item inside 93-ci falling a short distance of between 10 centimeters and one meter to the ground, in which a survival of the consumer item when the disposable package hits the ground is facilitates by at least one of: (i) said distance being short, and (ii) said disposable package comprising a soft and/or collapsible cushioning material 94-cm (FIG. 17D) that is an integral part of the disposable package 11 and/or that is attached to the bottom side of the disposable package.)
Claim 7
The combination of Zuckerman, Fritz, and Andersson teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. As shown above, Andersson also teaches
further comprising an additional obstacle in an area where movement of the target object in a height direction is predicted to be greater than or equal to a threshold value.
(Andersson - [0021] … By comparing the … the height of the obstacle 9 with the ground clearance of the vehicle 2, it can be determined whether the obstacle 9 is of such a size that the vehicle 2 can straddle the obstacle 9 without running over the obstacle 9.
If the result of the analysis shows that the obstacle 9 can be straddled by the vehicle 2, the processing unit 11 is adapted to determine a first trajectory 19 for the vehicle 2 based at least on the position of the vehicle 2, the position of the obstacle 9 and information about the ground clearance of the vehicle 2, so that the vehicle 2 straddles the obstacle 9.
According to one embodiment, the processing unit 11 is also adapted to receive a trajectory signal cp2 indicating a current trajectory 18 of the vehicle 2, and determine a first trajectory 19 of the vehicle 2 also based on this current trajectory 18.)
EXAMINER NOTE: In the proposed combination of Zuckerman and Andersson, the object is straddled if the height of the cargo being carried supplies sufficient clearance (is above a threshold)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5908283 A (see figs 100-103) pertains to height restrictions of objects being lifted and moved from one area to another. Height restrictions change depending on the start location, placement location, and any obstacles present.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES MILLER WATTS whose telephone number is (703)756-1249. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-TH.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571-270-5376. 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.
/JAMES MILLER WATTS III/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657