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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-23 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non Final Office Action on the on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 10/25/2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: suction force specifier, determiner, notifier, position specifier, and drive in claims 1, 12, 14, 15, and 22.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, see CPU in P [0060] and FIG. 9 for the suction force specifier, position specifier, and position specifier, speaker as part of a user interface in P [0018] for the notifier, and electric actuator in P [0052] for the drive.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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) 1-5, 12-13, 15-21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamoto, (Document ID: JP2018058175A).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamoto teaches a processing device, comprising:
a suction force specifier (control unit 70, see at least FIG. 3) configured to specify, based on first object information about an object, a suction force from a suction assembly to suck the object (see at least P [0034]: “the holding state determination unit 72 compares the weight of the luggage M with the holding force of the holding unit 13, and determines whether or not the luggage M should be transported based on the holding force of the holding unit 13”).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 1, and Nakamoto further teaches that
the first object information includes at least one selected from the group consisting of weight information indicating a weight of the object, first area information indicating an area on a surface of the object inaccessible to sucking performed by the suction assembly, second area information indicating an area on the surface of the object prohibited from being sucked by the suction assembly, and tilt limitation information indicating a limitation of tilt of the object (see at least P [0031]: “The weight detection unit 60 acquires the weight of the luggage M based on the detection result of the force sensor 15”).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 1, and Nakamoto further teaches that
the suction assembly includes a plurality of suction portions, and the suction force specifier is configured to specify, individually for each of the plurality of suction portions, a suction force from the suction portion to suck the object based on the first object information (see at least P [0013]-[0014]: “a plurality of suction cups 13a connected to a vacuum pump… a pressure sensor 14 is provided on each of the plurality of suction cups 13a” see also P [0041] wherein each suction cup force is considered to determine whether the suction force is properly large for holding the object).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 1, and Nakamoto further teaches
a suction assembly controller configured to control the suction assembly based on a suction force specification result from the suction force specifier (see at least P [0039]: “pump control unit 84 controls the vacuum pump 19 to generate a suction force in the suction cups 13a”).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 4, and Nakamoto further teaches that
the suction assembly includes at least one suction portion and a negative pressure generator configured to generate a negative pressure in the at least one suction portion (suction cup 13a for suction portion and vacuum pump 19 for negative pressure generator),
the suction force specifier is configured to specify, based on the first object information, a suction force from the at least one suction portion to suck the object (see at least P [0040]: “the holding state determining unit 72 compares the suction force acquired in step S104 with the weight acquired in step S106 to determine whether the suction force is sufficiently large”), and
the suction assembly controller is configured to control the negative pressure generator based on the suction force specification result (see at least P [0039]: “the pump control unit 84 controls the vacuum pump 19 to generate a suction force in the suction cups 13a”).
Regarding claim 12, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 1, and Nakamoto further teaches that
a determiner (holding state determination unit 72) configured to determine, based on a detection result from at least one sensor, a suction state of the suction assembly sucking the object (see at least P [0033]: “The holding state determination unit 72 determines whether or not to have the arm 12 transport the luggage M based on the holding state in which the holding unit 13 is holding the luggage M and the detection result of the force sensor 15.”).
Regarding claim 13, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 12, and Nakamoto further teaches that
the suction force specifier is configured to re-specify, based on a determination result from the determiner, a suction force from the suction assembly to suck the object (see at least P [0045] which describes the control process of FIG. 4, specifically step S110 wherein the luggage is not moved and instead the suction force specifier is configured to re-specify a suction force from the suction assembly to suck the object by reinitiating the loop).
Regarding claim 15, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 1, and Nakamoto further teaches that
the suction assembly includes at least one suction portion (suction cup 13a for suction portion), and
the processing device further comprises a position specifier (coordinate detection unit 62) configured to specify a position of the at least one suction portion based on second object information about the object (see at least P [0031]: “The coordinate detection unit 62 detects the two-dimensional coordinates of the center of gravity of the luggage M on the top surface based on the detection result of the force sensor 15”).
Regarding claim 16, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 15, and Nakamoto further teaches that
the second object information includes at least one selected from the group consisting of shape information indicating a shape of the object, center-of-gravity position information indicating a position of a center of gravity of the object, first area information indicating an area on a surface of the object inaccessible to sucking performed by the suction assembly, and second area information indicating an area on the surface of the object prohibited from being sucked by the suction assembly (see at least P [0031]: “two-dimensional coordinates are the position where the center of gravity of the luggage M is approximately projected onto the top surface of the luggage M”).
Regarding claim 17, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 15, and Nakamoto further teaches
a suction assembly controller configured to control the suction assembly based on a position specification result from the position specifier (see at least P [0051]: “the control device 40 determines whether or not the luggage M can be transported based on both the weight and the center of gravity”. Therefore the control is based on both first and second object information).
Regarding claim 18, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 4, and Nakamoto further teaches
a suction assembly controller included in the processing device according to claim 4 (control unit 70).
Regarding claim 19, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 1, and Nakamoto further teaches
a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as the processing device according to claim l (memory unit 90, see P [0027]-[0028] and FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 18, and Nakamoto further teaches
a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as the suction assembly controller according to claim 18 (memory unit 90, see P [0027]-[0028] and FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 21, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 1, and Nakamoto further teaches a processing system, comprising:
a suction assembly configured to suck an object (suction cup 13a the part of the suction assembly that sucks the object); and
the processing device according to claim l, the processing device being configured to specify the suction force from the suction assembly to suck the object (see at least P [0034]: “the holding state determination unit 72 compares the weight of the luggage M with the holding force of the holding unit 13, and determines whether or not the luggage M should be transported based on the holding force of the holding unit 13”).
Regarding claim 23, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 12, and Nakamoto further teaches
a suction assembly controller included in the processing device according to claim 17 (control unit 70).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Polido et al., hereinafter Polido (Document ID: US 20200189122 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Polido teaches a suction assembly for sucking an object, the suction assembly comprising:
a first suction portion including a first suction opening (primary gripping mechanism 10);
a second suction portion including a second suction opening smaller than the first suction opening, the second suction portion being movable relative to the first suction portion in the first suction portion (secondary gripping mechanism 12, see at least P [0015] and FIG. 1 - FIG. 2); and
a drive configured to move the second suction portion relative to the first suction portion in the first suction portion to cause the second suction opening to relatively move in and out of the first suction portion (actuator 50, see P [0028]),
wherein the drive is switchable between a first state in which the first suction portion sucks the object and a second state in which the second suction portion sucks the object (see at least P [0014] which identifies toggling between a first state in which the first suction portion sucks the object and a second state in which the second suction portion sucks the object, as well as identifying the need to switch in P [0016] based on the required force for gripping items.).
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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto in view of Polido.
Regarding claim 6, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 4, and Nakamoto further teaches that
the suction assembly includes a suction portion (suction cup 13a for suction portion),
the suction force specifier is configured to specify, based on the first object information, a suction force from the suction portion to suck the object (see at least P [0040]: “the holding state determining unit 72 compares the suction force acquired in step S104 with the weight acquired in step S106 to determine whether the suction force is sufficiently large”),
But Nakamoto does not explicitly teach that
the suction portion includes
a first suction portion including a first suction opening, and
a second suction portion including a second suction opening smaller than the first suction opening,
the suction assembly is switchable between a first state in which the first suction portion sucks the object and a second state in which the second suction portion sucks the object, and
the suction assembly controller is configured to switch the suction assembly between the first state and the second state based on the suction force specification result.
Instead, Polido, whose invention pertains to an end of arm suction tool, teaches in at least P [0014] “end-of-arm tools that carry an outer suction cup and an inner suction cup that is selectively extendable and retractable relative to the outer suction cup while maintaining concentric alignment with the outer suction cup.” P [0014] further identifies toggling between a first state in which the first suction portion sucks the object and a second state in which the second suction portion sucks the object, as well as identifying the need to switch in P [0016] based on the required force for gripping items. For example, “the primary gripping mechanism 10 can be characterized as being configured for gripping “heavier” items, while the secondary gripping mechanism 12 can be characterized as being configured for gripping “lighter” items.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the weight based suction system of Nakamoto with the concentric suction mechanism of Polido in order to provide a versatile suction apparatus with the ability to grasp items of different sizes and weights. Additionally, Nakamoto proposes a concentric suction alignment to provide "the tool with a narrower profile". Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Nakamoto with the concentric system of Polido in order to allow "the tools to operate more effectively in confined workspaces relative to prior art suction grippers".
Regarding claim 7, modified Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 6, and Nakamoto teaches in at least FIG. 8 and P [0052]-[0053] the ability to grasp the object with only a portion of the suction cups as needed based on weight and force determination. But Nakamoto does not teach that
the suction assembly is switchable among the first state, the second state, and a third state in which the first suction portion and the second suction portion suck the object, and
the suction assembly controller is configured to switch the suction assembly among the first state, the second state, and the third state based on the suction force specification result.
Instead Polido teaches in P [0014]-[0018] the ability to switch between numerous states for suction and that “The vacuum coupling 20 is configured to communicate vacuum pressure to one or both of the outer and inner suction assemblies 14, 16”. Additionally, in P [0014] each suction state is based specifically on weight and force required to handle an object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the weight based suction system of Nakamoto with the concentric suction mechanism of Polido in order to provide a versatile suction apparatus with the ability to grasp items of different sizes and weights.
Regarding claim 8, modified Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 6, but Nakamoto does not teach that
the second suction portion is movable relative to the first suction portion in the first suction portion to cause the second suction opening to relatively move in and out of the first suction portion.
Instead, Polido teaches in at least FIG. 1 and P [0014] “an inner suction cup that is selectively extendable and retractable relative to the outer suction cup while maintaining concentric alignment with the outer suction cup.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the weight based suction system of Nakamoto with the concentric suction mechanism of Polido in order to provide a versatile suction apparatus with the ability to grasp items of different sizes and weights. Additionally, Nakamoto proposes a concentric suction alignment to provide "the tool with a narrower profile". Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Nakamoto with the concentric system of Polido in order to allow "the tools to operate more effectively in confined workspaces relative to prior art suction grippers".
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto in view of Ueno (Document ID: JP2012152843A).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 1, and Nakamoto further teaches in at least P [0013] the use of suction cups for the suction portion and a pressure sensor in P [0030], but not explicitly that
the suction assembly includes a suction portion including a suction pad, and
the suction force specifier is configured to specify a suction force from the suction portion to suck the object based on the first object information and based on a change over time in a viscoelastic characteristic of the suction pad.
Instead, Ueno, whose invention pertains to a sucking device that can detect wear of a suction pad, teaches in at least P [0004] that “the suction pad wears out depending on the frequency of use”. Ueno additionally teaches in P [0030] utilizing pressure data to monitor a change over time compared with a set reference suction pressure to determine whether or not the suction pad is worn.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the suction force control of Nakamoto with the suction pad and material wear consideration over time of Ueno in order to monitor wear on the suction pad as in P [0016] of Ueno, which provides context for the lifetime use of the suction system and helps determine when maintenance is necessary.
Regarding claim 11, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 1, and Nakamoto further teaches in at least P [0013] the use of suction cups for the suction portion and a pressure sensor in P [0030], but not explicitly that
the suction assembly includes a suction portion including a suction pad, and
the suction force specifier is configured to specify a suction force from the suction portion to suck the object based on the first object information and based on a change in a viscoelastic characteristic of the suction pad with use.
Instead, Ueno teaches in at least P [0004] that “the suction pad wears out depending on the frequency of use”. Ueno additionally teaches in P [0030] utilizing pressure data to monitor a change over time compared with a set reference suction pressure to determine whether or not the suction pad is worn.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the suction force control of Nakamoto with the suction pad and material wear consideration with higher use of Ueno in order to monitor wear on the suction pad as in P [0016] of Ueno, which provides context for the lifetime use of the suction system and helps determine when maintenance is necessary.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto in view of Tanaka et al., hereinafter Tanaka (Document ID: US 20190030730 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Nakamoto teaches the processing device according to claim 12, and Nakamoto teaches a process for evaluating a suction result and modifying the suction attempt. But Nakamoto does not explicitly teach
a notifier configured to provide, based on a determination result from the determiner, an alert to outside the processing device.
Instead, Tanaka, whose invention pertains to a robust vacuum suction gripping device, teaches in at least P [0082] that “the first determination circuit 63A determines that the vacuum suction parts have failed in holding the article 16”, and “the controller body 54 may notify a user of abnormality.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the context aware and suction reassessment of Nakamoto with the alert of Tanaka in order to execute a design choice for proceeding with a suction grasping system when a hold is unsuccessful, as presented in P [0082] of Tanaka.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be potentially allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 20190283217 A1
Invention pertains to a suction grasping system that utilizes a light sensor to determine the viability of the suction.
Document ID: US 20220212884 A1
Invention pertains to a suction conveyance system capable of obtaining information to enhance the suction process.
Document ID: US 20190389082 A1
Invention pertains to an imaging system that works in tandem with a suction device.
Document ID: US 11207786 B1
Invention pertains to a grip stability system that uses suction to support an item.
Document ID: JP 2014101192 A
Invention pertains to a suction pad that is elastically deformed while performing conveyance of an object.
Document ID: JP 4724562 B2
Invention pertains to a vacuum suction head that is capable of sucking an object with undulation or flexure.
Document ID: US 9457477 B1
Invention pertains to a variable suction gripper that utilizes a material with changing stiffness.
Document ID: US 9205558 B1
Invention pertains to a suction gripper with multiple suction cups and selective activation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30AM - 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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656