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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 4/9/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 8-9 remain pending in the application, claims 4-7 have been cancelled, and new claim 10 has been added. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/9/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Mathi does not disclose the amended limitations regarding a first and second plan, and making a determination based on the position and posture of the target object. It is important to note that Applicant attempts to distinguish the position and posture recognition with the identification process of Mathi, but the Specification in P [0011] directly pertains to a process wherein “a position, posture, shape, or the like of the target object M is recognized anew”. The goal, in general is “the accuracy of recognition of the target object M”. In other words, the position an posture of the present application appear to directly involve improving “accuracy of recognition”.
Note, the identified sections of the disclosure are not all explicitly recited in the claims, but they provide context for the invention of the instant application, and provide context for showing that Mathi is closely analogous art to the presently claimed invention. Additionally, Applicant cites to P [0052] of Mathi to contest the rejection, but P [0052] was not used in the prior rejection and recites a slightly different embodiment of the system of Mathi. Ultimately, Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references and/or rationale being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8-9 objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite a step to "recognize a position and posture of the target object at a confirmation position for recognizing the target object". However, as claimed this step precedes the recitation of generating a first plan that reaches the confirmation position, as well as the control step to move the target object to the predetermined position.
The points in the specification indicated by Applicant to provide support for the claim amendments, such as P [0022], makes it clear that the confirmation position is reached and then an “image [is] captured by the image device 30 at the confirmation position P” for determining the “state of the object M”. Therefore, the limitation should likely read “receive a predicted position and posture of the target object”, as is consistent with P [0021] which defines “a position predicted from the control signal”. This way, the claims reflect the disclosure and do not introduce potential new matter, since it is not possible to “recognize” the object, which in the art is known to mean capturing an image of the object, before the object is in position to be recognized. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims will be interpreted as receiving a predicted position and posture of the target object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathi et al., hereinafter Mathi (Document ID: US 20240375872 A1) in view of Diankov et al., hereinafter Diankov (Document ID: US 10335947 B1).
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:
recognize a position and posture of the target object at a confirmation position for recognizing the target object (see at least P [0034]: “a second sensor unit 14, which is configured to register identification information of an article 2. The second sensor unit 14 is particularly arranged to register the identification information of an article 2 picked up by the handling unit 7 and provided by the handling unit 7 at a reading position 16”. In view of the objection above, the claim language is understood as setting a predicted position and posture of the object at a confirmation position, in this case the reading position 16, and the position and posture require that the identification information be readable, meaning therefore that an expected position and posture of the object is used to identify the article. P [0037] further establishes “position and/or orientation of the articles” at the source, but this registration is used to establish a necessary position and posture at the confirmation position);
generate a plan that is a movement path including the position and posture of the target object from a movement source of the target object via the confirmation position to a predetermined position (see at least P [0037] wherein a “suitable gripping method” is determined. The griping method involves the physical constraints for selecting a gripping position or surface, but also defines a plan for moving the target object from a movement source of the target object via the confirmation position to a predetermined position);
control, in a case where a control process of moving the target object to the predetermined position is performed, the robot hand so that the target object is moved to the confirmation position (see at least P [0038] “the control unit 11 is then configured to control the handling unit 7 to pick up a selected article 2 with the selected gripping method or with the selected gripping tool 9 at the gripping position or gripping surface, respectively, and to control the handling unit 7 to move the article picked up 2 to the reading position 16 of the second sensor unit 15.”);
in a case where the target object is moved to the confirmation position, determine whether or not to generate a new movement path including the position and posture of the target object from the movement source to the predetermined position (see at least P [0046]: “If the article 2 could not be identified at the reading position 16, the handling unit 7 is controlled by the control unit 11 to return or throw back the article 2 to the source position 3... The control unit 11 preferably controls the handling unit 7 in a way such that the article 2 at the source position 3 is in a different position and/or orientation than before” From here the article 2 is “guided, for example, to tilt or rotate such that the identification information is no longer located in the area of the gripping position or gripping surface, respectively” and a new plan is generated for brining the target object from the movement source to the predetermined position)
Note that Mathi does not explicit recite generating a “first” and “second” plan and therefore does not explicitly teach the steps wherein
in a case of determining to generate the second plan, generate the second plan based on the recognized position and posture of the target object; and
move the target object from the confirmation position to the predetermined position based on the generated second 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 base 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). Diankov further then teaches the ability to “regrip” the object and execute a second plan that differs from the base motion plan for getting the object to the final destination.
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 methods for robotic path planning with a stopping point, and replanning as needed. Mathi already discloses a procedure for generating a robotic trajectory with a confirmation position, which includes generating a new plan when the results of identification are not as expected based on the position and posture of the object. But Mathi does not explicitly enumerate the steps for the path planning when the item is thrown back into the bin. 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.
Regarding claim 2, modified 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 10, modified Mathi teaches the robot system according to claim 1, and in view of the modification Mathi further teaches that the processor is configured to
move the target object from the confirmation position to the predetermined position based on the first plan in a case of determining not to generate the second plan (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.”).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathi in view of Diankov, and further in view of Nakahara (Document ID: US 20120265345 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified 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 and Diankov do 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 and Diankov 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, Diankov, 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, Diankov, 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights