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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2024.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
The term "close" in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "greater" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation “extraction machine” with the structure in specifications in page 6 “effector”. It is being interpreted as means plus function.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 7-11, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ban (US20080082213).
Regarding claim 1, Ban teaches extraction machine controller for controlling an extraction machine and extracting an arbitrary object from a plurality of objects including at least one object on which a plurality of extraction positions are set, the controller comprising ([0012]-[0015], [0030]-[0044] disclosing an extraction controller for controlling extraction of an object from a plurality of objects based on their positions):
a data acquisition unit configured to acquire data from a sensor that measures an outer shape of the plurality of objects ([0012]-[0019], [0030]-[0044] disclosing the image processing device which is interpreted as the data acquisition and the data processing unit capable of receiving the data and processing the image data from sensors, the sensor capable of measuring a size of the workpiece as a ratio of a stored template of the workpiece);
a data processing unit configured to process the data from the data acquisition unit and store in a list, for each of the extraction positions, data used for controlling the extraction machine to access the object in association with the extraction positions ([0012]-[0019], [0030]-[0044] disclosing the image processing device which is interpreted as the data processing unit that processes the data and stores it in a group list of the objects, see fig. 4 and figure 5);
an extraction position selection unit configured to select an extraction position of an object to be extracted by the extraction machine based on an output of the list ([0012]-[0019], [0030]-[0044] disclosing the workpiece selecting unit to select an extraction position of an object to be extracted based on the blacklist and the group list); and
an extraction machine control unit configured to control the extraction machine to extract the object based on an output of the extraction position selection unit ([0012]-[0019], [0030]-[0044] disclosing the workpiece selecting unit to control unit to control the gripping of the selected workpiece);
Regarding claim 2, Ban teaches the extraction machine controller according to claim 1, wherein the list is a blacklist in which there is stored extraction positions that the extraction machine is not allowed to access ([0030]-[0045], Fig. 5 disclosing the blacklist positions that is not allowed to be extracted), and
the data processing unit is configured to store in the blacklist, for each of the extraction positions, at least one of an extraction position related to an extraction operation in which the extraction machine is controlled based on the extraction position to extract the object, and an extraction position other than the extraction position related to the extraction operation ([0030]-[0045], Fig. 5 disclosing the blacklist positions that is not allowed to be extracted storing the positions that are not extractable).
Regarding claim 3, Ban teaches the extraction machine controller according to claim 2, wherein the data processing unit is further configured to:
set a visit count for the extraction position stored in the blacklist, increase the visit count set for the extraction positions based on a first predetermined condition ([0030]-[0045] disclosing the value Bj interpreted as the visit count, which increases each time based on condition that the object in blacklist failed to match with the overall search workpiece data list), and
delete the extraction position stored in the blacklist from the blacklist when the visit count set for the extraction position becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value ([0030]-[0045] disclosing the value Bj interpreted as the visit count, which increases each time based on condition that the object in blacklist failed to match with the overall search workpiece data list to delete the object from the list after a predetermined number reached).
Regarding claim 7, Ban teaches the extraction machine controller according to any one of claim 2, wherein the data processing unit is further configured to:
when an object for which a new extraction position based on a new measurement is set overlaps with the position and orientation data of an object for which an extraction position already stored in the blacklist is set, perform at least one of taking over and using of the data of the extraction position already stored in the blacklist ([0030]-[0045] disclosing the matching of the search list with the blocklist and upon match using the position of the blacklist to not allow the search list item corresponding to the blacklist to be extracted).
Regarding claim 8, Ban teaches the extraction machine controller according to claim 2, wherein the data processing unit is further configured to:
when the new extraction position overlaps with the extraction position already stored in the blacklist, perform at least one of taking over and using the data of the extraction position already stored in the blacklist ([0030]-[0045] disclosing the matching of the search list with the blocklist and upon match using the position of the blacklist to not allow the search list item corresponding to the blacklist to be extracted).
Regarding claim 9, Ban teaches the extraction machine controller according to claim 7, wherein the data processing unit is further configured to:
delete the data of the extraction position already stored in the blacklist that has been inherited and/or used ([0030]-[0045] disclosing based on the number of time/residence that the position has been blacklisted, the position is deleted).
Regarding claim 10, Ban teaches the extraction machine controller according to claim 1, wherein the list is an extraction position list in which there is stored a priority of being accessed by the extraction machine, and the data processing unit is configured to decrease, by a predetermined value, the priority in the extraction position list of at least one of an extraction position related to an extraction operation for controlling the extraction machine to extract the object based on the extraction position and an extraction position other than the extraction position related to the extraction operation, for each of the extraction positions ([0030]-[0046] disclosing the list includes the priority order of extraction which is based on the extraction that took place thus removing the object from priority and reordering the items based on the remaining items in the list to be extracted, thus it is based on an extraction operation position and other extraction operation positions).
Regarding claim 11, Ban teaches the extraction machine controller according to claim 10, wherein the data processing unit is further configured to: set a visit count for an extraction position the priority of which has been decreased, increase the visit count set for the extraction position based on a first predetermined condition, and when the visit count set for the extraction position reaches or exceeds a predetermined value, return the priority of the extraction position the priority of which has been decreased to a predetermined value or deletes it from the extraction position list ([0030]-[0045] disclosing the priority list is based on the objects that are not deleted, thus the deleted items lose the priority, i.e., decreased priority to a zero.[0030]-[0045] further disclosing the value Bj interpreted as the visit count, which increases each time based on condition that the object in blacklist failed to match with the overall search workpiece data list and is thus returned to the priority list thus the priority is increased).
Regarding claim 16, Ban teaches the extraction machine controller according to claim 10 , wherein the data processing unit is further configured to:
when an object for which a new extraction position based on a new measure is set overlaps with position and orientation data of an object for which an extraction position having a lower priority is set, perform at least one of taking over and using the data of the extraction position with a lower priority ([0030]-[0045] disclosing the matching of the search list with the blocklist and upon match using the position of the blacklist to not allow the search list item corresponding to the blacklist to be extracted, thus the item in the blacklist is minimum priority and the item matched is not given priority or removed to the blocklist).
Regarding claim 17, Ban teaches the extraction machine controller according to claim 10, wherein the data processing unit is further configured to:
when the new extraction position overlaps with the extraction position having a lower priority, perform at least one of taking over and using the data of the extraction position having a lower priority ([0030]-[0045] disclosing the matching of the search list with the blocklist and upon match using the position of the blacklist to not allow the search list item corresponding to the blacklist to be extracted, thus the item in the blacklist is minimum priority and the item matched is not given priority or removed to the blocklist).
Regarding claim 18, Ban teaches the extraction machine controller according to claim 16, wherein the data processing unit is further configured to:
delete data of the extraction position having the lower priority which has been performed at least one of taking over and using the data of the extraction position having the lower priority ([0035]-[0045] disclosing removing the workpiece at the position of the extraction that matches the position in the blacklist indicative of lowest priority).
Regarding claim 19, Ban teaches the extraction machine controller according to
claim 10, wherein the predetermined value is set to a value that makes the priority of the
extraction position the priority of which has been lowered zero, and the extraction position selection unit is configured not to select the extraction position the priority of which is zero ([0030]-[0045] disclosing not selecting a priority of zero which are items removed from the list and selecting the top priorities as ordered).
Regarding claim 20, Ban teaches the extraction machine controller according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of objects are randomly arranged in a container, and the sensor is a three-dimensional measurement instrument configured to measure the outer shape of the plurality of objects randomly arranged in the container ([0012]-[0019], [0030]-[0044] disclosing the image processing device which is interpreted as the data acquisition and the data processing unit capable of receiving the data and processing the image data from sensors, the sensor capable of measuring a size of the workpiece as a ratio of a stored template of the workpiece);
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.
Claims 4, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ban (US20080082213).
Regarding claim 4, Ban teaches the extraction machine controller according to claim 2-or 3, wherein the data processing unit is further configured to:
set a life count for the extraction position of the object stored in the blacklist,
decrease the life count set for the extraction position based on a second predetermined condition ([0030]-[0045] disclosing the residual value Aj that is interpreted as a life count, which determines how long the value stays in the list based on a count), and
delete the extraction position stored in the blacklist from the blacklist when the life count set for the extraction position becomes zero or less ([0030]-[0045] disclosing the residual value Aj that is interpreted as a life count, which determines how long the value stays in the list based on a count. Wherein the position is deleted from the blacklist when the counter predetermined value is reached).
While Ban teaches the life value as being reached when the counter reaches the value, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try and count down from the number to zero with reasonable expectation of success.
Ban shows all elements per claimed invention as explained in the paragraph above. However it is silent as to the specifics of the **range***. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to Ban with such ***range*** , since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Ban teaches the extraction machine controller according to claim 10 or claim 11,
wherein the data processing unit is further configured to:
set a life count for the extraction position the priority of which has been lowered,
decrease the life count set for the extraction position based on a second predetermined
condition ([0030]-[0045] disclosing the priority is based on the search group list and the items removed from list are interpreted as reduced priority to zero, wherein [0030]-[0045] disclosing the residual value Aj that is interpreted as a life count, which determines how long the value stays in the list based on a count. Wherein the position is deleted from the blacklist when the counter predetermined value is reached) and
when the life count set for the extraction position becomes equal to or less than zero, return the priority of the extraction position the priority of which has been decreased to a predetermined value or deletes it from the extraction position list ([0030]-[0045] disclosing the residual value Aj that is interpreted as a life count, which determines how long the value stays in the list based on a count. Wherein the position is deleted from the blacklist when the counter predetermined value is reached and returned to the list and is given priority with the rest of the list, i.e., the priority is increased).
While Ban teaches the life value as being reached when the counter reaches the value, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try and count down from the number to zero with reasonable expectation of success.
Ban shows all elements per claimed invention as explained in the paragraph above. However it is silent as to the specifics of the **range***. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to Ban with such ***range*** , since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 5, 6, 13,14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ban (US20080082213) and Boroushaki (US20230056652).
Regarding claim 5, Ban does not teaches the extraction machine controller according to claim 4, wherein the data processing unit is further configured to: set a weight for a value by which the life count set for the extraction position is decreased based on a third predetermined condition.
Boroushaki teaches set a weight for a value by which the life count set for the extraction position is decreased based on a third predetermined condition ([0055], [0149]-[0150] disclosing a weight of the value for picking the target item, wherein other items must be picked being 2 or 3 determined by the number of occluding or interfering items to the target object, thus the target item is blacklisted until other items are removed and the number change based on number of occluding items).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Boroushaki to the blacklist of Ban yielding predictable results in order to ensure the waiting time or number for the blocklist is based on the other occluding items thus improving the pick efficiency instead of being one fixed number.
While Boroushaki teaches the reduction of the number such as when determining there is one piece only vs two to pick, it would have been obvious to try to keep the same number and reduce the count by half or increase it by double with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Ban teaches the extraction machine controller according to claim 5, wherein the data processing unit is further configured to:
decrease the life count set for a first extraction position by a first value when a distance between the first extraction position stored in the blacklist and a second extraction position related to the extraction operation of the object is close, and decrease the life count set for the first extraction position by a second value which is less than the first value when the distance between the first extraction position stored in the blacklist and the second extraction position related to the extraction operation of the object is farther than the close distance (Ban [0030]-[0045] disclosing when the correspondence between extraction position in the data search list group and the blacklist position is within a tolerance then to decrease the priority to zero based on the removal of the position from the group list and it is determined when the correspondence is not within the tolerance that the position does not belong to the blacklist and thus the decrease will always be based on the priority and will always be less than the decrease to a zero when the position belongs to a blacklist).
Regarding claim 13, Ban does not teach the extraction machine controller according to claim 12, wherein the data processing unit is further configured to: set a weight based on a third predetermined condition for a value by which the life count set in the extraction position is decreased.
Boroushaki teaches set a weight for a value by which the life count set for the extraction position is decreased based on a third predetermined condition ([0055], [0149]-[0150] disclosing a weight of the value for picking the target item, wherein other items must be picked being 2 or 3 determined by the number of occluding or interfering items to the target object, thus the target item is blacklisted until other items are removed and the number change based on number of occluding items).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Boroushaki to the blacklist of Ban yielding predictable results in order to ensure the waiting time or number for the blocklist is based on the other occluding items thus improving the pick efficiency instead of being one fixed number.
While Boroushaki teaches the reduction of the number such as when determining there is one piece only vs two to pick, it would have been obvious to try to keep the same number and reduce the count by half or increase it by double with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Ban as modified by Boroushaki teaches the extraction machine controller according to claim 13, wherein the data processing unit is further configured to: decrease the life count set for a first extraction position by a first value when a distance between the first extraction position stored in the blacklist and a second extraction position related to the extraction operation of the object is close, and decrease the life count set for the first extraction position by a second value which is less than the first value when the distance between the first extraction position stored in the blacklist and the second extraction position related to the extraction operation of the object is farther than the close distance (Ban [0030]-[0045] disclosing when the correspondence between extraction position in the data search list group and the blacklist position is within a tolerance then to decrease the priority to zero based on the removal of the position from the group list and it is determined when the correspondence is not within the tolerance that the position does not belong to the blacklist and thus the decrease will always be based on the priority and will always be less than the decrease to a zero when the position belongs to a blacklist).
Regarding claim 15, Ban as modified by Boroushaki teaches the extraction machine controller according to claim 13, wherein the data processing unit is further configured to: integrate visit count processing and life count processing into the priority processing (Ban [0030]-[0045] disclosing the visit count and the life count are processed into priority processing wherein the item is returned to the priority list when the life and visit counts reach the threshold).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20130238124 disclosing storing a list of items and when an object covered by another pick the close object to allow pickup of target.
US20070274812 discloses when the distance of an object from agitated items is large, thus it can be picked without the need for a new image, i.e., unaffected by agitation.
US20190071261 disclosing when a score of the grasp is more than a stir threshold, to stir the items to separate them for pickup.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights