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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/891,250 filled on 09/20/2024.
Claims 1-22 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1-22, the line number on the left column of the claims should apparently be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC § 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 22 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim 17 recites “A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for:”. Considering the open ended definition of the computer program product, it is computer software per se and is not a "process," a "machine," a "manufacture" or a "composition of matter," as defined in 35 USC § 101. In order to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection, the applicants are advised to amend the claim limitations as “A having stored therein computer program product [[and]] comprising computer instructions executed by a processor for:”.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter)
Claims 1-22 would be allowable claims are re-written to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, and claims objections for informalities, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art, Kanemoto (US 2024/0316779A1) teaches a robotic system (See Abstract and/or Para. [0082], discloses “a system for handling of object, such as loading and unloading of cargo carriers”), comprising:
communication interface (Se Fig. 2, “communication path”, and/or ”communication device”); and
a processor coupled to the communication interface (See Fig. 2, Para. [0104], “the processor 202 coupled with communication path 218 ”, and see Para. [0108], “the robotic system 100 can use the communication devices 206 to exchange information between units of the robotic system 100 and/or exchange information (e.g., for reporting, data gathering, analyzing, and/or troubleshooting purposes) with systems or devices external to the robotic system 100.”) and configured to:
receive sensor data via the communication interface (See Para. [0111], “The robotic system 100 can include the sensors 216 configured to obtain information used to implement the tasks”, and/or see Para. [0113]-[0114], [0116], discloses “The robotic system 100 receives sensor data and analyzes sensor data”, and/or see Para. [0144], “The robotic system 800 includes ones or more upper vision sensors 824 and one or more lower vision sensors 825 configured to obtain an image of the cargo carrier 832 and the plurality of objects 834. Specifically, the vision sensors are configured to capture an image of the vertical plane of objects 834. The image information may be employed by a local controller to control operation of the robotic system”);
use the sensor data to determine a position and orientation of an extendable conveyor relative to a robotic loader comprising one or more robotic arms mounted on a robotically controlled rover (See Para. [0114], “The robotic system 100 can use the position sensors 224 to track locations and/or orientations of the structural members and/or the joints during execution of the task”, and see Para. [0130], discloses “identify that the conveyor segment 320 is extended to a desire location”, and see Para. [0239], “the process including obtaining position information indicative of a relative position between the conveyor mount and the chassis mount. In some embodiments, the position information may be obtained from one or more distance sensors”); and
Kanemoto further discloses in Para. [0318], that the retractable system 4414 can help fill a gap between the distal joint 4410 and the end effector 4404 to help support target objects moving in the proximal direction. In the lowered position, the retractable system 4414 is positioned beneath the first conveyors 4412, allowing the first conveyors 4412 to be positioned adjacent to the end effector 4404. But he doesn’t explicitly spell out , use the determined position and orientation of the extendable conveyor relative to the robotic loader to control one or both of the extendable conveyor and the robotic loader to place the extendable conveyor and robotic loader to position a distal end of the extendable conveyor within reach of the one or more robotic arms at a location within a work area from which one or more pick or placement locations within the work area are within reach of at least one of the one or more robotic arms.
Another closest prior art, Griggs (US 2021/0122589 A1) teaches, use the determined position and orientation of the extendable conveyor (See Para. [0022], “determining a position of the extendable portion of the extendable conveyor based on the first distance”). Furthermore, Griggs discloses in Para. [0043] that “ a manipulation system 100a including a robotic carton unloader 100b for unloading a container, truck trailer 101 and an extendable conveyor 110. The robotic carton unloader may interface with a conveyor, for example, an extendable conveyor 110 mounted to a floor 124 of a warehouse. Extendable conveyor 110 is depicted in FIG. 1 as a fully powered telescopic conveyor mounted to the floor 124 of a loading dock, but is not limited thereto. Robotic carton unloader 100b can unload cartons 102 from within a store, distribution center, or warehouse, and from the container, truck, or semi-trailer.”, and see Para. [0071], “PLC 111 can command an extension motion actuator on the extendable conveyor 110 to correspond to movements of the robotic carton unloader 100b to keep the extendable conveyor system 110 and the robotic carton unloader 100b in alignment and in proper spacing.”)
Nevertheless, the cited prior arts as discussed above fails to teach or suggest the claimed feature of “control one or both of the extendable conveyor and the robotic loader to place the extendable conveyor and robotic loader to position a distal end of the extendable conveyor within reach of the one or more robotic arms at a location within a work area from which one or more pick or placement locations within the work area are within reach of at least one of the one or more robotic arms”, and in combination with all other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-20 depend either directly or indirectly upon claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-20 would be allowable by virtue of their dependency on allowable base claim 1.
Claim 21 is a method claim and having the same allowable subject matter of claim 1 as discussed above. Therefore, Claim 21 would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 22 is a computer program product claim and having the same allowable subject matter of claim 1 as discussed above. Therefore, Claim 22 would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights