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 1-9 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 10/28/2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
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 6-7 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.
Claims 6 and 7 recite the limitation "a second plan" in regards to the two part process used for moving a target object to a confirmation position and subsequently to a predetermined position. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not establish “a first plan” so the “second plan” in the case of claims 6 and 7.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the determination of claim 6 will be interpreted to comprise a determination on whether or not the object was successfully recognized. As indicated by the Specification, this condition allows the control process to proceed with the movement from the confirmation position to the predetermined position. Therefore, similarly in the case of claim 7, the “second plan” will be interpreted as simply meaning that the target object stopped at the confirmation position and is subsequently brought to the predetermined position.
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) 1-2, 4, and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mathi et al., hereinafter Mathi (Document ID: US 20240375872 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, Mathi teaches a robot system, a control method executed by a robot system, and a non-transitory recording medium storing a program comprising:
a robot hand configured to grasp a target object (grippers 10);
a memory configured to store instructions (see at least P [0057]: “memory of the control unit 11)); and
a processor configured to execute the instructions (control unit 11) to:
control, in a case where a control process of moving the target object to a predetermined position is performed, the robot so that the target object is moved to a confirmation position where the target object is recognized and the target object is moved from the confirmation position to the predetermined position (see at least P [0038]-[0039]: “control the handling unit 7 to move the article picked up 2 to the reading position 16 of the second sensor unit 15.” And then after recognition, or identification, is complete, “discharge the article 2 to the target position 5 in case of a successful identification of the article 2 at the reading position 16.”).
Regarding claim 2, Mathi teaches the robot system according to claim 1, and Mathi further teaches a robot (robotic arm 8),
wherein the robot hand is included in the robot (see at least FIG. 1 and P [0032]).
Regarding claim 4, Mathi teaches the robot system according to claim 1, and Mathi further teaches that
the processor is configured to recognize the target object at the confirmation position (see at least P [0042], specifically “reading position 16” and “identification of the article 2”); and
perform a control process of moving the target object from the confirmation position to the predetermined position after the processor recognizes the target object (see at least P [0044]: “after a successful identification of the article 2 at the reading position 16, the control unit 11 controls the handling unit 7 to transport the identified article 2′ to the target position 5 and discharge it there.”).
Regarding claim 6, Mathi teaches the robot system according to claim 1, and Mathi further teaches that
the processor is configured to determine whether or not to generate a second plan, which includes a control process of moving the target object from the confirmation position to the predetermined position, at the confirmation position (see at least P [0039] wherein the article is moved from the confirmation position to the predetermined position only “in case of a successful identification of the article 2 at the reading position 16.” See also P [0046] which shows that a determination is made based on whether or not the article could be identified).
Regarding claim 7, Mathi teaches the robot system according to claim 6, and Mathi further teaches that the processor is configured to:
generate the second plan in a case where the processor determines to generate the second plan (see at least P [0044] wherein the control unit determines that the identification is successful and a second plan will be made); and
cause the target object to move from the confirmation position to the predetermined position based on the second plan (see again P [0044] wherein the object is transported to the predetermined position, or target position 5).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathi in view of Nakahara (Document ID: US 20120265345 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Mathi teaches the robot system according to claim 1, and Mathi further teaches that the confirmation position is located between a position where the robot hand has grasped the target object and the predetermined position in at least FIG. 2, but Mathi does not explicitly teach that the confirmation position is closer to the predetermined position than the position where the robot hand has grasped the target object.
Instead, Nakahara, whose invention pertains to a robot system for imaging an object as it is grasped, teaches in P [0034] that “the examination camera 6 is arranged near a path to move the work 200 that is being grasped by the hand portion 17 into the processing machine 300”.
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 identification confirmation system of Mathi with the convenient path located camera of Nakahara in order to execute a design choice for minimizing the complexity of the trajectory for transferring the item by placing the confirmation point on the route to the destination.
Mathi and Nakahara do not explicitly teach that the confirmation position is closer to the predetermined position than a position where the hand has grasped the target object. However, 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 identification confirmation system with a camera along the trajectory to the predetermined position of Mathi and Nakahara with a convenient path located camera specifically closer to the destination in order to execute a design choice for placing the camera at any convenient point on the route to the destination.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathi in view of Diankov et al., hereinafter Diankov (Document ID: US 10335947 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Mathi teaches the robot system according to claim 1, and Mathi teaches the process beginning in P [0041] to generate the pick up command and identification process, which includes in P [0044] causing the target object to move to the confirmation position. But Mathi does not explicitly teach that the processor is configured to:
generate a first plan including a control process of moving the target object to the predetermined position; and
cause the target object to move to the confirmation position based on the first plan.
Instead, Diankov, whose invention pertains to calculating a base motion plan for a robotic gripper and modifying the plan as needed, teaches in at least step 506 of FIG. 5 the ability to calculate a based plan for transferring “the target object 112 from the start location 114 to the task location 116” (Col 15, Line 42). Additionally, an object scanner 416 is used to scan the target object “at a location between the pickup area and the placement area. Accordingly, the robotic system 100 can calculate the base motion plan 422 to place the target object 112 at a scanning location with a predetermined pose such that a portion or a surface of the target object 112 is presented to the object scanner 416.” (Col 12, Line 27)
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 pickup and identification process of Mathi with the base motion plan and scanning location of Diankov in order to execute a design choice to utilize known modern methods for robotic path planning with a stopping point. Mathi already discloses a procedure for generating a robotic trajectory with a confirmation position, but does not explicitly disclose the path planning steps. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosure of Diankov provides context for updated descriptions of robotic path planning with a series of similar steps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 20140277694 A1
Invention pertains to a workpiece holding state determination process for a grasping robot.
Document ID: US 20210308866 A1
Invention pertains to a workpiece shape analysis technique for a bin picking robot.
Document ID: US 10300601 B2
Invention pertains to a system of robotic machines capable of performing an inspection operation.
Document ID: US 20150120054 A1
Invention pertains to evaluating grip orientation for a target work.
Document ID: JP6729773B2
Invention pertains to a shared space robotic system with multiple work station locations.
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-F 8:00AM - 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, 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