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 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: first reference point correction unit, target reference point setting unit, arm control unit, in claim(s) 1 (first instance), second reference point correction unit in Claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The units will be interpreted as function software modules stored in computer memory and executed by a computer processor as described in par. 0039 and Fig. 9 of applicant’s specification as filed, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is a a program causing a computer to function as the robot control device, which qualifies as software per se. Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") are ineligible under 101 Step 1 when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. See MPEP 2106.03. It is recommended that Applicant amend to include a nontransitory computer readable medium storing the program to overcome this rejection.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menon et al (US 20210122043, hereinafter Menon) in view of Nagai et al (JP 2013154446, hereinafter Nagai).
Regarding Claim 1, Menon teaches:
a robot control device that causes a robot arm to grip an assembling component (see at least " control computer 122 configured to communicate, in this example via wireless communication (but in one or both of wired and wireless communication in various embodiments) with elements such as robotic arm 102, carriage 104, effector 108, and sensors, such as camera 112, 114, and 116 and/or weight, force, and/or other sensors not shown in FIG. 1A. " in par. 0033) having N (N is an integer equal to or larger than 2) first feature portions and to assemble the assembling component to a component to be assembled having N second feature portions corresponding to the first feature portions (see at least " Each of the pedestal portions 142, 144 has a specific shape that in this example fits snugly in a corresponding receiving cavity 146, 148 of a destination receptacle, such as receptacle 120 of FIG. 1A. In various embodiments, a destination receptacle may include a foam or other insert that defines specific locations for each of a plurality of parts. In various embodiments, a robotic kitting system as disclosed herein uses one or more of position control and force control to place each item in a corresponding defined location in a destination receptacle. The location for each item may be defined by one or more cavities in a protective material, such as a foam insert, dividers (e.g., cardboard, plastic, etc.). In various embodiments, position control is used to position each item in proximity to its destination slot or other location, and force control primitives are used to align (or verify alignment of) the respective structures of the item with corresponding cavities in the destination location of the item and to “slot” or insert the item into its location. " in par. 0036) , the robot control device comprising:
a first reference point correction unit that obtains M (M is an integer equal to or larger than 2 and equal to or smaller than N) first correction reference points by correcting teaching data of M first reference points defined corresponding to each of M first feature portions by comparing states of the M first feature portions in a state where the assembling component is gripped by the robot arm with states of the M first feature portions when the teaching data is obtained; (see at least “the control computer 112 of FIG. 1, or another computer, may use the manifest (or other) and context data received at 302 to generate without human intervention a plan to pick items from source receptacles to destination receptacles, such as to assemble a series of kits in an order and manner prescribed by the manifest or other requirements data.” In par. 0041 and " In the example shown, as illustrated in FIG. 7A, a first destination receptacle 702 is aligned with an expected orientation denotes by axis y.sub.0 but a second destination receptacle 704 is aligned with an axis y.sub.new that is offset from the expected orientation axis y.sub.0. As shown in FIG. 7B, in various embodiments, a robotic kitting system as disclosed herein, expecting the destination receptacle 704 to be align with expected y.sub.0 axis, may initially move an item such as handle 140 to a position as shown in FIG. 7B. The system would expect the longitudinal axis of handle 140 to be aligned with the orientation of the slot defined by cavities 146 and 148, to facilitate insertion of. In various embodiments, a robotic kitting system as disclosed herein uses force control to find and align the pedestals 142 and 144 with the cavities 146 and 148, thereby discovering the true orientation of the destination receptacle 704 on axis y.sub.new. In various embodiments, a robotic kitting system as disclosed herein, upon learning the true orientation the destination receptacle 704, on axis y.sub.new in this example, remaps the position of other slots in the destination receptacle 704, increasing the accuracy, speed, and efficiency of subsequent operations to insert other items into remaining slots in the destination receptacle 704. " in par. 0056 and “the system updates a spatial mapping (e.g., location coordinates and/or orientation of destination slots, to reflect the true orientation that has been determined for the receptacle.” 0057 )
a target reference point setting unit that sets one of the M first correction reference points as a target reference point (see at least " . For example, in some embodiments, if force and/or torque readings suggest one of a plurality of protrusions each of which is to be inserted into a corresponding cavity is partly aligned with its slot, then the system invokes a force control primitive to first more fully align that part of the item with its slot, e.g., by slightly adjusting the orientation of the item to disengage other protrusions from the foam or other insert that defines the cavities (slots) in the destination receptacle. Once the first part of the item is aligned and has been slid partly into its slot, the orientation is adjusted, e.g. made parallel to the destination receptacle, effectively using the alignment achieved for the first protrusion to line other parts of the item up with their respective slots/cavities. " in par. 0045 ) ; and
wherein the target reference point setting unit sets the first correction reference point in a next order as the target reference point in a case where it is determined that the target reference point is matched with a corresponding second reference point. (see at least “For example, in some embodiments, if force and/or torque readings suggest one of a plurality of protrusions each of which is to be inserted into a corresponding cavity is partly aligned with its slot, then the system invokes a force control primitive to first more fully align that part of the item with its slot, e.g., by slightly adjusting the orientation of the item to disengage other protrusions from the foam or other insert that defines the cavities (slots) in the destination receptacle. Once the first part of the item is aligned and has been slid partly into its slot, the orientation is adjusted, e.g. made parallel to the destination receptacle, effectively using the alignment achieved for the first protrusion to line other parts of the item up with their respective slots/cavities.” In par. 0045 and " In this example, the system tilts the end effector 202 (and structures comprising and/or in the grasp of the end effector) as shown in FIG. 6B, using force control to keep pedestal 142 engaged (i.e., in contact) with foam insert 602. One or more search strategies, e.g., as described above, are used by the system to align the pedestal 142 with its corresponding cavity, as shown in FIG. 6B. Once the pedestal 142 has been determined to be aligned with its corresponding cavity, the system changes the orientation of end effector 202 and uses vertical downward motion to insert the pedestals 142, 144 each into its corresponding cavity." in par. 0055)
Menon does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Nagai does teach:
a target reference point setting unit that sets one of the M first correction reference points as a target reference point based on a preset order (see at least " As shown in FIG. 1, the automatic assembly system S for workpieces W includes first and second workpieces W1, which are fitted to each other by fitting a plurality of fitting feet f... Into corresponding fitting holes h. " on page 3 and “In order to prevent assembly failure, when the fitting feet f are sequentially inserted into the fitting holes h, the first workpiece is within the allowable deformation amount range of the already inserted fitting feet. It is necessary to adjust the relative position between W1 and the second workpiece W2 and insert the next fitting foot into the corresponding fitting hole.” On page 6 and “In the present embodiment, the insertion order for sequentially inserting the fitting feet of the multi-point fitting assembly is determined while leaving as much as possible the degree of assembly freedom as described above. Assembling is possible while preventing assembly failure due to load and destruction.” On page 7)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control device taught by Menon to incorporate the teachings of Nagai wherein each foot of a first workpiece is sequentially fit into the holes of a second workpiece in a predetermined order. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Nagai would be to avoid breakage of the feet resulting in assembly failure (see page 6).
Regarding Claim 2, Menon as modified by Nagai teaches:
the robot control device according to claim 1
Menon further teaches: wherein the first feature portion is a protruding portion provided on the assembling component. (see at least " pedestals 142, 144 " in par. 0035 and Fig. 1B )
Regarding Claim 3, Menon as modified by Nagai teaches:
the robot control device according to claim 2
Menon further teaches: wherein the assembling component is a panel having a curvature, and N protruding portions are provided at intervals along a curvature direction. (see at least Fig. 1B )
Regarding Claim 6, Menon as modified by Nagai teaches:
the robot control device according to claim 1
Menon further teaches: wherein, in a case where the target reference point is matched with the second reference point and a reaction force generated by contact of the assembling component with the component to be assembled exceeds a first threshold value which is preset (see at least " For example, a first force control primitive may enable the robotic kitting system to detect that an item has come into contact with a top surface of a foam or other insert that defines destination slots of a destination receptacle." in par. 0044) ,
the arm control unit performs force control of pressing the assembling component toward the component to be assembled while causing the robot arm to swing in a swing direction which is preset. (see at least " The force control primitive may cause the control computer to stop advancing the item and perform one or more operations to locate the slot. For example, the control computer may apply one or more search algorithms or techniques to find the slot, which may themselves use one or more force control primitives. In some embodiments, force and torque readings may be used to detect an extent to which the item or a portion thereof may be aligned or nearly align with an associated part of the destination slot. For example, a peg/pedestal nearly aligned with a cavity into which it is to be inserted may be subject to less resistive force and/or somewhat higher torque than if the structure were more fully not in alignment and being pushed back against more forcefully (higher force) and more evenly (less torque) than if it were partially and/or (more) nearly aligned." in par. 0044 and “Depending on the information sensed upon initial approach to the destination slot, in various embodiments, one or more (other) force primitives may be invoked to (better or more fully) locate and align the item with the destination slot. For example, in some embodiments, if force and/or torque readings suggest one of a plurality of protrusions each of which is to be inserted into a corresponding cavity is partly aligned with its slot, then the system invokes a force control primitive to first more fully align that part of the item with its slot, e.g., by slightly adjusting the orientation of the item to disengage other protrusions from the foam or other insert that defines the cavities (slots) in the destination receptacle. Once the first part of the item is aligned and has been slid partly into its slot, the orientation is adjusted, e.g. made parallel to the destination receptacle, effectively using the alignment achieved for the first protrusion to line other parts of the item up with their respective slots/cavities. The part may then be slid more fully into the destination location, using force control, for example, or a combination of force control and position control, to detect when the item has been slid fully into the slot.” In par. 0045)
Regarding Claim 7, Menon as modified by Nagai teaches:
the robot control device according to claim 6
Menon further teaches: wherein, in a case where the force control is performed and the reaction force is equal to or smaller than a second threshold value which is preset, the arm control unit determines that the target reference point is matched with the second reference point. (see at least " For example, a peg/pedestal nearly aligned with a cavity into which it is to be inserted may be subject to less resistive force and/or somewhat higher torque than if the structure were more fully not in alignment and being pushed back against more forcefully (higher force) and more evenly (less torque) than if it were partially and/or (more) nearly aligned." in par. 0044 and “In one approach, once close to the slot the robotic arm may be used to move the item in the plane of the destination receptacle (e.g., x- and y-axes), simultaneously recording force sensing and position. The force sensor signal is filtered, and the search algorithm detects when the force signal decreases below 1N, indicating the item is on top of slot and not on foam (no upward force present). When the drop of force occurs, the associated position of the robot at this change is recalled and the robot is moved towards this location. Insertion of item is then activated by commanding the robot to go down until a force threshold is felt and correction of any tilt is performed. Position of the height of the robot is checked to corroborate item is fully within the slot.” In par. 0052)
Regarding Claim 9, Menon as modified by Nagai teaches:
the robot control device according to claim 1, further comprising:
Menon further teaches: a second reference point correction unit that obtains M second correction reference points by correcting teaching data of M second reference points defined corresponding to each of M second feature portions by comparing states of the M second feature portions in a state where the component to be assembled is fixed with states of the M second feature portions when the teaching data is obtained, wherein the arm control unit controls the robot arm such that the target reference point is matched with a corresponding second correction reference point. (see at least " The location for each item may be defined by one or more cavities in a protective material, such as a foam insert, dividers (e.g., cardboard, plastic, etc.). In various embodiments, position control is used to position each item in proximity to its destination slot or other location, and force control primitives are used to align (or verify alignment of) the respective structures of the item with corresponding cavities in the destination location of the item and to “slot” or insert the item into its location. In various embodiments, the force control ensures that the slot located and the part aligned and inserted into the slot with force sufficient to overcome friction and insert the item despite tight tolerances, all without damaging either the receptacle (e.g., due to damage to the foam or other insert) or the item." in par. 0036 and “For example, in some embodiments, if force and/or torque readings suggest one of a plurality of protrusions each of which is to be inserted into a corresponding cavity is partly aligned with its slot, then the system invokes a force control primitive to first more fully align that part of the item with its slot, e.g., by slightly adjusting the orientation of the item to disengage other protrusions from the foam or other insert that defines the cavities (slots) in the destination receptacle. Once the first part of the item is aligned and has been slid partly into its slot, the orientation is adjusted, e.g. made parallel to the destination receptacle, effectively using the alignment achieved for the first protrusion to line other parts of the item up with their respective slots/cavities. The part may then be slid more fully into the destination location, using force control, for example, or a combination of force control and position control, to detect when the item has been slid fully into the slot. For example, if a force pushing back on the item is detected and the vertical height of the end effector is a height associated with having placed the item fully into the slot, the control computer may determine the item has been slotted successfully.” In par. 0045 )
Regarding Claim 10, Menon as modified by Nagai (references to Menon) also teaches:
a robot (see at least robotic arm in par. 0027) comprising:
the robot control device according to claim 1 (see Claim 1 analysis for rejection of the control device.)
Regarding Claim 11, Menon as modified by Nagai (references teaches:
a robot control method for implementing the features of the control device of Claim 1 (see Claim 1 analysis for rejection of the control device)
Regarding Claim 12, Menon teaches:
a program causing a computer to function as the robot control device according to claim 1 (see Claim 1 analysis)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menon et al (US 20210122043, hereinafter Menon) in view of Nagai et al (JP 2013154446, hereinafter Nagai) and Wertenberger et al (US 20190071261, hereinafter Wertenberger)
Regarding Claim 8, Menon as modified by Nagai teaches:
the robot control device according to claim 7
Menon further teaches: wherein the arm control unit repeatedly performs the force control until the reaction force is equal to or smaller than the second threshold value which is preset, (see at least "In one approach, once close to the slot the robotic arm may be used to move the item in the plane of the destination receptacle (e.g., x- and y-axes), simultaneously recording force sensing and position. The force sensor signal is filtered, and the search algorithm detects when the force signal decreases below 1N, indicating the item is on top of slot and not on foam (no upward force present). When the drop of force occurs, the associated position of the robot at this change is recalled and the robot is moved towards this location. Insertion of item is then activated by commanding the robot to go down until a force threshold is felt and correction of any tilt is performed. Position of the height of the robot is checked to corroborate item is fully within the slot.” In par. 0052) and
Menon and Nagai do not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Wertenberger does teach:
in a case where the reaction force is not equal to or smaller than the second threshold value even after the force control is performed a predetermined number of times, the arm control unit performs error notification. (see at least " If at step 262, a determination is made that further corrective action is required, then steps 260 and 262 can again be repeated. Further, a counter or additional tracking device or method can track the number of times that corrective actions taken at step 260 have been determined at step 262 to have failed to result in the component 144 being at the proper orientation. If the number of attempted, but failed, corrective actions exceeds a predetermined number, such as, for example, three determinations at step 262 that the corrective actions of step 260 have failed to remedy the issue, then at step 264 a signal or other notification can be generated and provided to the operator of the robotic station 102 or the management system 104 that provides notification of the issue." in par. 0086 )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control device taught by Menon as modified by Nagai to incorporate the teachings of Wertenberger wherein after a predetermined number of failed attempts of a robotic action, an error notification is sent to a robot operator. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Wertenberger would be to make an operator aware that manual intervention is needed (see par. 0077), which improves the reliability of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art comes from Menon and Nagai. These reference teach aligning protrusions of a workpiece for insertion into corresponding recesses of another workpiece in a predetermined order, but fail to teach the specific features listed below.
For Claim 4, the prior art does not appear to specifically teach the order starting at an end of a panel and progressing towards the center of the panel in combination with all of the other limitations in claims.
For Claim 5, the prior art does not appear to specifically teach obtaining both 3D and 2D data for the feature portions and comparing them to corresponding 2D and 3D teaching data to correct the alignment of multiple feature portions in combination with all of the other limitations in claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN M KATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. 8:00-6:00.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/DYLAN M KATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights