DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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; or
(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 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu (JP 2020070152)(with text citations to English translation provided by Applicant).
Shimizu teaches a picking device comprising:
(re: claim 1) a rail (52) that extends over a first area and a second area (fig. 1 showing rail near 52 that extends over first and second container areas near C1 and C2; para. 9-10);
a first transfer device that transports an object from the first area to the second area by picking up the object in the first area, traveling along the rail, and then releasing the object in the second area, the first transfer device including a first traveling body that travels while being guided by the rail, a first arm that includes a proximal end portion attached to the first traveling body, and a first holding device that is attached to a distal end portion of the first arm to hold an object (fig. 2, 3 and 5 showing a transfer device comprising a traveling body near 51, a first arm near 16 and a holding element 11 ; para. 12, 15-16 teaching transfer device configured to pickup, hold and transport an object from C1 to C2);
a second transfer device that transports an object from the first area to the second area by picking up the object in the first area, traveling along the rail, and then releasing the object in the second area, the second transfer device including a second traveling body that travels while being guided by the rail, a second arm that includes a proximal end portion attached to the second traveling body, and a second holding device that is attached to a distal end portion of the second arm to hold an object (fig. 2, 3 and 5 showing a transfer device comprising a traveling body near 61, a first arm near 18 and a holding element 12; para. 12, 15, 17 teaching transfer device configured to pickup, hold and transport an object from C1 to C2); and
a transfer control device that controls the first transfer device and the second transfer device to cause the first transfer device and the second transfer device to pick up objects in parallel in the first area, travel in parallel along the rail, and then release the objects in parallel in the second area (para. 18, 39-40 teaching transfer control element configured to control respective robot arms and transfer objects);
(re: claim 5) a position deriver that derives a position of one or more objects placed in the first area; and
a picking determiner that determines, based on positions of, among the one or more objects, two objects to be picked up obtained from the position deriver, whether the first transfer device and the second transfer device can pick up the two objects in parallel,
wherein when a result of determination by the picking determiner is positive, the transfer control device controls the first transfer device and the second transfer device to cause the first transfer device and the second transfer device to pick up the two objects in parallel, and when the result of determination by the picking determiner is negative, the transfer control device controls the first transfer device and the second transfer device to cause the first transfer device to pick up one of the two objects in the first area and then cause the second transfer device to pick up another one of the two objects in the first area (fig. 14 showing multiple objects in parallel and para. 39-40 teaching transfer control configured to independently and transfer parallel items simultaneously, wherein the position deriver and picking determiner elements are inherent in the simultaneous transfer of the objects).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (JP 2020070152) in view of Ando et al. (“Ando”)(JP 2012024900A) (with text citations to English translation provided by Applicant) and Mizoguchi et al. (“Mizoguchi”)(US 2021/0053230).
Shimizu as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 2) wherein the first arm further includes:
a first upper arm that includes a proximal end portion attached to the first traveling body to enable rotation of the first upper arm with respect to the first traveling body in a prescribed plane intersecting an extending direction of the rail and prevent motion of the first upper arm relative to the extending direction; and
a first forearm that includes a proximal end portion attached to a distal end portion of the first upper arm to enable rotation of the first forearm with respect to the first upper arm in a plane parallel to the prescribed plane and prevent motion of the first forearm relative to the extending direction, the first holding device is attached to a distal end portion of the first forearm,
the second arm further includes:
a second upper arm that includes a proximal end portion attached to the second traveling body to enable rotation of the second upper arm with respect to the second traveling body in a plane parallel to the prescribed plane and prevent motion of the second upper arm relative to the extending direction; and a second forearm that includes a proximal end portion attached to a distal end portion of the second upper arm to enable rotation of the second forearm with respect to the second upper arm in a plane parallel to the prescribed plane and prevent motion of the second forearm relative to the extending direction, and the second holding device is attached to a distal end portion of the second forearm;
(re: claim 3) wherein the first holding device is provided protruding toward the second transfer device with respect to the first forearm, and the second holding device is provided protruding toward the first transfer device with respect to the second forearm;
(re: claim 7) wherein when the two objects in the first area overlap each other in a vertical direction, the picking determiner determines that the two objects cannot be picked up in parallel.
Ando, however, teaches that it is well-known in the robotic arts
(re: claim 2)
-to configure a robotic arm with a upper arm connected to a traveling element and a forearm connected to said upper arm to allow rotation in a parallel plane and prevent motion in an extending direction (fig. 1, 3 showing first and second arm units 11, 12 and para. 21 teaching said first articulated arm comprising an upper arm 16 rotatable connected to forearms 21, 22, wherein said rotation axes are preferably parallel; see also para. 23 teaching second arm 12 is similar to first arm); and
(re: claim 3)
-to configure the respective holding device towards the transfer devices (fig. 1, 3)
--as these configurations allow independent movement of the respective robot arms with a higher degree of freedom (para. 5, 6).
Mizoguchi further teaches that it is well-known in the object handling arts
(re: claim 7)
-to configure a robotic pick system to determine whether two objects are overlapping when identifying target objects and optimizing the robotic pick plan (fig. 3 showing imaging elements 160 and fig. 16 showing use of image data to select target objects and generate instructions to robotic system with specific gripper positions; para. 23, 45, 48-51 and 84-92 teaching use of image data that includes overlapping/stacked items to identify target items, e.g., items that are accessible or are positioned at corners or edges that provide access for picking via robotic vacuum grippers).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (i.e., articulated robotic arms and pick determiner including imaging of overlapping elements) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Shimizu for the reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
July 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights