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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 September 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 10-11, and 13-20 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein.
Claims 8-9 and 12 remain withdrawn for being drawn to a non-elected species.
Claims 1 and 19-20 are amended.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the Final Rejection dated 30 June 2026.
The interpretation of “communication interface” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) from the prior office action is withdrawn since Claim 1 no longer recites this term.
The claim objection from the prior office action is withdrawn.
The prior art of record from the prior office action includes the following:
U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0017317 (Yap and Yu, hereinafter, Yap)
U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0070361 (Menon et al., hereinafter, Menon)
Applicant's arguments, filed 4 September 2026, regarding the prior art of record from the prior office action (i.e., Yap and Menon), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, Applicant’s allegation that the teachings of Menon are “not the same as “determining that the set of end effectors corresponds to the indicated robotic application, gathering the determined set of end effectors, transporting the set of end effectors to the workspace, and arranging the end effectors in the set at the workspace for ready mounting, use, and unmounting”” is not found persuasive in showing the current claims are non-obvious over the combination of Menon and Yap. The Examiner believes the Yap and Menon combination would have suggested “determining that the set of end effectors corresponds to the indicated robotic application, gathering the determined set of end effectors, transporting the set of end effectors to the workspace, and arranging the end effectors in the set at the workspace for ready mounting, use, and unmounting” to those of ordinary skill in the art as one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the teachings of Menon related to tools to the teachings of Yap related to end effectors (see full analysis below).
Effective Filing Date
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic benefit to provisional application 63/540,303 filed 25 September 2023. The provisional application shares similar subject matter to the instant claims. However, the Examiner has determined that the provisional application does not fully support under 35 U.S.C. 112 at least the limitation “determining that the set of end effectors corresponds to the indicated robotic application, gathering the determined set of end effectors, transporting the set of end effectors to the workspace, and arranging the end effectors in the set at the workspace for ready mounting, use, and unmounting” in the independent claims filed 4 September 2026. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2152.01, the Examiner is considering the effective filing date of the currently pending claims to be 25 September 2024 (i.e., the filing date of the instant application and not the provisional application).
The Examiner’s determination is based on the following:
In the remarks dated 4 September 2026, Applicant asserts that the teachings of Menon (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0070361 from U.S. Patent Applicant serial No. 16/675,972) are not the same as “determining that the set of end effectors corresponds to the indicated robotic application, gathering the determined set of end effectors, transporting the set of end effectors to the workspace, and arranging the end effectors in the set at the workspace for ready mounting, use, and unmounting”. The Appendix of provisional application 63/540,303 is from the same family as Menon (the Appendix is from U.S. Patent Applicant serial No. 16/034,544, which is the parent to U.S. Patent Applicant serial No. 16/675,972) and therefore, Applicant’s statement indicates the Appendix of the provisional application is not the same as and does not support “determining that the set of end effectors corresponds to the indicated robotic application, gathering the determined set of end effectors, transporting the set of end effectors to the workspace, and arranging the end effectors in the set at the workspace for ready mounting, use, and unmounting”.
The Examiner reviewed the specification and other attachments in provisional application 63/540,303 did not find support for “determining that the set of end effectors corresponds to the indicated robotic application, gathering the determined set of end effectors, transporting the set of end effectors to the workspace, and arranging the end effectors in the set at the workspace for ready mounting, use, and unmounting”.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
Claims 1, 19, and 20: “the end effectors in the set at the workspace” should be “the end effectors in the set of end effectors at the workspace”.
Claim 16: “a plurality of robotic applications” should be “[[a]]the plurality of robotic applications”.
Claim 19: “the processor” should be “[[the]]a processor”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 19 recite (emphasis, added) “the end effector is selected from a set of end effectors that the processor is configured to determine and assemble in response to receiving an indication to perform the robotic application, including by determining that the set of end effectors corresponds to the indicated robotic application, gathering the determined set of end effectors, transporting the set of end effectors to the workspace, and arranging the end effectors in the set at the workspace for ready mounting, use, and unmounting”. In view of the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would assume the processor is not going to directly gather, transport, and arrange objects itself (i.e., the processor is not “configured to” complete the claimed limitations); therefore, the claims include new matter. Claims 2-7, 10-11, and 13-18 are rejected for being dependent on a claim with new matter. Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 19 recite (emphasis, added) “the end effector is selected from a set of end effectors that the processor is configured to determine and assemble in response to receiving an indication to perform the robotic application, including by determining that the set of end effectors corresponds to the indicated robotic application, gathering the determined set of end effectors, transporting the set of end effectors to the workspace, and arranging the end effectors in the set at the workspace for ready mounting, use, and unmounting”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know the metes and bounds of this claim. In view of the specification, there is no indication to one of ordinary skill in the art that the processor is going to directly gather, transport, and arrange objects itself, and Applicant has not claimed how gather, transport, and arrange objects can actually happen; therefore, the claim is indefinite. Claims 2-7, 10-11, and 13-18 are rejected for being dependent on an indefinite claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the claims as requiring a robot controlled by the processor to gather, transport, and arrange the end effectors (see paragraph [0053] of the specification). Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Each pending claim is rejected twice under 35 U.S.C. 103 below (Rejection 1 and Rejection 2).
Rejection 1:
Claims 1-6, 10, 13-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yap in view of Menon.
Regarding Claim 1, Yap discloses A robotic system (see at least [0002]), comprising:
a sensor configured to generate sensor data in a workspace (see at least [0267]: “Sorting stand 150 also includes a vision system with four cameras 158, each having one or more image sensors (e.g., visible light and/or infrared sensors). The vision system can have any number of cameras and be located in other locations or supported by other structures. In some cases, cameras 158 capture image data that includes visible light data (e.g., RGB data) and/or depth information (e.g., how far objects in the image are from the camera). The captured image data is sent to the control system for processing.”); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the sensor (see at least [0262], [0265], and [0267]: “The captured image data is sent to the control system for processing”) and configured to:
use the sensor data to determine an end effector to be used to perform a task with respect to an object in the workspace (see at least [0273], [0303], [0378], [0380], and [0400]: “In some embodiments, when performing a task (e.g., picking an object having a certain size, shape, or composition, etc.) the robotic system (e.g., 800) optionally chooses an end effector among multiple end effectors”);
autonomously mount the end effector on a free moving end of a robotic arm of the robotic system (see at least [0400]: “The system is able to switch the type of end effector (e.g., switching between the gripper 1904 and gripper 2002) during the operation automatically based on the object characteristics (e.g. dimension, weight, surface material) in the tote. There are multiple types of end effectors (e.g., multiple types of cups) that are placed on a fixture nearby the robot. When the robot needs to switch the end effector, it will conduct a certain motion so that the current engaged end effector will be left on the fixture and then engage another cup on the fixture. In some cases, the end effectors are attached with magnetic force or vacuum force.”); and
use the robotic arm and the end effector to perform the task with respect to the object (see at least [0007]: “moving the robotic arm to position the end effector at the location; gripping the object at the location; and moving the object from the container on the sorting stand to a container on the receptacle stand”);
wherein the task is associated with a robotic application included in a plurality of robotic applications, each robotic application in the plurality of robotic applications being associated with a defined set of tasks or types of task and a corresponding set of end effectors associated with that robotic application…(see at least [0005], [0303], and [0314]: “The system determines whether using a finger gripper or a suction gripper is more effective for a particular object, and if by suction, what suction nozzle size is suitable”; “In some embodiments, when performing a task (e.g., picking an object having a certain size, shape, or composition, etc.) the robotic system (e.g., 800) optionally chooses an end effector among multiple end effectors”).
Yap does not appear to explicitly disclose and the end effector is selected from a set of end effectors that the processor is configured to determine and assemble in response to receiving an indication to perform the robotic application, including by determining that the set of end effectors corresponds to the indicated robotic application, gathering the determined set of end effectors, transporting the set of end effectors to the workspace, and arranging the end effectors in the set at the workspace for ready mounting, use, and unmounting.
Menon, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches and the tool is selected from a set of tools that the processor is configured to determine and assemble in response to receiving an indication to perform the robotic application, including by determining that the set of tools corresponds to the indicated robotic application, gathering the determined set of tools, transporting the set of tools to the workspace, and arranging the tools in the set at the workspace for ready mounting, use, and unmounting (see at least [0031], [0037]-[0038], [0040]-[0041], and [0079]: “In some embodiments, robot 100 is configured to select and mount a tool belt comprising the tools needed to perform a given set of tasks”; “In various embodiments, one or more of the robot 100 and control computer 120 may include control logic to determine attributes of objects with respect to which tasks are to be performed, such as objects 122, 124, and 126 in the example shown in FIG. 1, and to determine a set of tools to perform the tasks. The control logic includes logic to determine whether the required (or optimal) tools are in the holders 114, and if not to swap out the tools and/or the set of holders 114 with the required tools and/or set of holders 114 comprising the required tools. Once the required tools are in holders 114 on base 102, robot 100 uses the tools to perform the tasks”).
Combining the teachings of Menon (determining and assembling the necessary tools for a robot) with the invention of Yap (the combination is determining and assembling the end effectors of Yap based on the teachings relating to tools of Menon), would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of ensuring the most useful end effectors for a specific operation are closest to the robot.
Regarding Claim 2, the Yap and Menon combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein the sensor comprises a camera and the sensor data comprises image data (see at least [0267] and [0273]: “Sorting stand 150 also includes a vision system with four cameras 158, each having one or more image sensors (e.g., visible light and/or infrared sensors). The vision system can have any number of cameras and be located in other locations or supported by other structures. In some cases, cameras 158 capture image data that includes visible light data (e.g., RGB data) and/or depth information (e.g., how far objects in the image are from the camera). The captured image data is sent to the control system for processing.”).
Regarding Claim 3, the Yap and Menon combination teaches Claim 2. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein the processor is configured to use the image data to determine an attribute of the object and to determine the end effector to be used to perform the task based at least in part on the attribute (see at least [0136]-[0137], [0269], and [0303]: “The control system can then identify the object (e.g., by scanning a bar code or using image recognition or analyzing other properties of the object)”; “In some embodiments, when performing a task (e.g., picking an object having a certain size, shape, or composition, etc.) the robotic system (e.g., 800) optionally chooses an end effector among multiple end effectors”).
Regarding Claim 4, the Yap and Menon combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein determining the end effector includes selecting the end effector from among a plurality of end effectors available to be mounted on the free moving end of the robotic arm (see at least [0400] and FIG. 20: “The system is able to switch the type of end effector (e.g., switching between the gripper 1904 and gripper 2002) during the operation automatically based on the object characteristics (e.g. dimension, weight, surface material) in the tote. There are multiple types of end effectors (e.g., multiple types of cups) that are placed on a fixture nearby the robot. When the robot needs to switch the end effector, it will conduct a certain motion so that the current engaged end effector will be left on the fixture and then engage another cup on the fixture. In some cases, the end effectors are attached with magnetic force or vacuum force.”).
Regarding Claim 5, the Yap and Menon combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap further discloses that the robot may be mounted on a wheeled base (see at least [0080]: “In some embodiments, the receptacle stand includes wheels”). Furthermore, Menon further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1 / as part of the same combination as Claim 1) wherein the robotic arm is mounted on a robotically controlled rover (see at least FIG. 1) and wherein autonomously mounting the end effector on the free moving end of the robotic arm includes operating the rover under robotic control to position the robotic arm in a location from which the end effector is within reach of the free moving end of the robotic arm (see at least [0031], [0037], [0040], and FIG. 1: “robot 100 is configured to swap one or all of the tool holders 114 and replace them with other tool holders 114, such as ones that contain and are adapted specifically to house a specific alternative set of tools”; “The control logic includes logic to determine whether the required (or optimal) tools are in the holders 114, and if not to swap out the tools and/or the set of holders 114 with the required tools and/or set of holders 114 comprising the required tools. Once the required tools are in holders 114 on base 102, robot 100 uses the tools to perform the tasks”).
Regarding Claim 6, the Yap and Menon combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap discloses determining a location of the detachable tool in the rack (see at least [0378]-[0380]). Furthermore, Menon further teaches wherein the sensor data comprises RF tag data associated with the end effector and the processor is configured to use the RF tag data to locate and mount the end effector to be used to perform the task (see at least [0048]: “The robot may be configured, e.g., via a model, configuration data, sensing (e.g., reading a bar code or RF tag), and/or other data to know which tool is located in which tool holder”).
Further combining the invention of Yap with the RF tag sensing of Menon would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of adding a known method of confirming the end effector with high accuracy even when visual sensing may not be available (see at least Menon [0048]).
Regarding Claim 10, the Yap and Menon combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein autonomously mounting the end effector on the free moving end of the robotic arm includes using suction to grasp and hold the end effector to the free moving end of the robotic arm (see at least [0400]: “The system is able to switch the type of end effector (e.g., switching between the gripper 1904 and gripper 2002) during the operation automatically”; “the end effectors are attached with magnetic force or vacuum force”).
Regarding Claim 13, the Yap and Menon combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein autonomously mounting the end effector includes recognizing that the end effector determined to be used to perform the task is already mounted (see at least [0378]: “while the robotic arm tool is coupled with a first detachable tool, the system determines whether a second detachable tool is needed”).
Regarding Claim 14, the Yap and Menon combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein the end effector comprises a first end effector and wherein autonomously mounting the first end effector includes unmounting a second end effector mounted previously on the free moving end of the robotic arm (see at least [0379]: “In accordance with a determination that the second detachable tool is needed, the robotic arm tool decouples from the first detachable tool, for example, by mounting the first detachable tool onto an available slot on a tool rack and pulling away from the tool rack to decouple the first detachable tool from the tool changer base.”).
Regarding Claim 16, the Yap and Menon combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein the task is associated with a first robotic application included in a plurality of robotic applications and wherein the processor is configured to determine a set of end effectors associated with the first robotic application and to select the end effector from among the set of end effectors associated with the first robotic application (see at least [0005] and [0314]: “The system determines whether using a finger gripper or a suction gripper is more effective for a particular object, and if by suction, what suction nozzle size is suitable”).
Regarding Claim 17, the Yap and Menon combination teaches Claim 16. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to use the robotic arm to select the set of end effectors associated with the first robotic application from a larger group of available end effectors, based at least in part on the robotic system being configured to perform tasks associated with the first robotic application (see at least [0005] and [0314]: “The system determines whether using a finger gripper or a suction gripper is more effective for a particular object, and if by suction, what suction nozzle size is suitable”).
Regarding Claim 18, the Yap and Menon combination teaches Claim 16. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein the end effector is included in a set of end effectors disposed on an end effector wall (see at least [0375]-[0377] and FIG. 19H: “The tool rack can be secured in any orientation or angle, and the motion paths of the robotic arm can be programmed accordingly to achieve coupling and decoupling described above. For example, the tool rack can be secured in an upright orientation, with the widened openings of the slots facing upward.“).
Regarding Claim 19, Yap discloses A method (see at least [0261]). All other limitations of this claim are substantially similar to limitations in Claim 1 and the rejection for Claim 1 should be referenced.
Regarding Claim 20, Yap discloses A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions (see at least [0263]). All other limitations of this claim are substantially similar to limitations in Claim 1 and the rejection for Claim 1 should be referenced.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yap in view of Menon in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0032466 (Adachi et al., hereinafter, Adachi).
Regarding Claim 7, the Yap and Menon combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap discloses / suggests wherein autonomously mounting the end effector on the free moving end of the robotic arm includes using computer vision to move an end effector mount structure on the free moving end of the robotic arm to a position adjacent to a corresponding structure on the end effector… (see at least [0002], [0006], [0367], [0375]: “This relates generally to pick and place robotic systems that use artificial intelligence, computer vision, and/or mechanical systems to sort and place objects from input containers (or other receptacles) to multiple corresponding receptacle destinations”; “In operation, the robotic arm moves to place the tool changer base in proximity to (e.g., over) a detachable tool mounted over the tool rack. The tool changer base is lowered in the z direction such that it makes contact with the detachable tool. According to the magnetic coupling mechanism described above, the tool changer base and the proximal end of the detachable tool are coupled together in an aligned and centered manner. After coupling is achieved, the robotic arm moves the detachable tool out of the notch (e.g., via a movement on the x-y plane) and away from the tool rack. In some embodiments, after the robotic arm moves the detachable tool out of the notch such that the groove section of the detachable tool no longer interfaces with the notch, the robotic arm subsequently pulls upwards in the z direction to move the detachable tool away from the tool rack”; using the computer vision system of Yap for the tool alignment would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation ensuring alignment even if the position of the tool rack is moved).
The Yap and Menon combination does not explicitly teach using force control to engage the end effector mount structure with the corresponding structure on the end effector.
Adachi, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches using force control to engage the end effector mount structure with the corresponding structure on the end effector (see at least [0051] and FIG. 1: “Particularly, in the embodiment, the robot 2 has the force detection sensor 28. Accordingly, the force applied to the force detection sensor 28 is fed back to the control apparatus 6, and thereby, for example, the coupling between the robot 2 and the first hand 51 or the second hand 52 may be performed at a lower failure frequency in a shorter time”).
Combining the force control of Adachi with the Yap and Menon combination would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of lowering the failure rate of attaching a new end effector (see at least Adachi [0051]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yap in view of Menon in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0073612 (Baker and Gamst, hereinafter, Baker).
Regarding Claim 11, the Yap and Menon combination teaches Claim 10. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein the end effector comprises a suction end effector (see at least [0393]: “a vacuum flow is created through the primary chamber 2106 of loose bag cup gripper 2002 (e.g., via an air flow source) and the bag 2004 is drawn upward into the primary chamber 2106 through the opening at the distal end 2104”) and wherein …suction …is further supplied to the end effector as a resource (see at least [0399]: “In operation, the modified loose bag cup gripper 2002 is placed at a desirable location in proximity to a target item. The robotic system then activates a vacuum pass-through such that the modified loose bag cup gripper 2002 applies a vertical suction force to the target item.”).
The Yap and Menon combination does not explicitly teach wherein the suction used to grasp and hold the end effector to the free moving end of the robotic arm is further supplied to the end effector as a resource.
Baker, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein the suction used to grasp and hold the end effector to the free moving end of the robotic arm is further supplied to the end effector as a resource (see at least [0055] and FIG. 4: “FIG. 4 depicts a cross sectional view of a gripper assembly 200 comprising the gripper snorkel arrangement 100 attached to the gripper unit 10. Suction cups 13 of the gripper unit 10 are aligned to interface with the holes 115 of the interface plate 110. The suction cups 13 interfacing with the holes 115 may be used to provide a suction force that is transferred from the suction cups 13 to the open end 122 of the snorkel 120 via the holes 115 and the inner lumen 125 of the snorkel 120. Not shown in FIG. 4, there may be suction cups 13 comprised in the gripper unit 10 interfacing with sections of the interface plate 110 not being provided with holes 115. Since the interface plate 110 is substantially planar, these suction cups 13 will attach the snorkel arrangement to the gripper unit by means of suction. The control suction cup 14 in FIG. 4 may of course be replaced with a normal suction cup 13 used for providing an attachment means. If the gripper snorkel arrangement of FIG. 4 would have been provided with only one hole 115, one of the suction cups 13 shown in FIG. 4 would provide suction force to the open end 122 of the snorkel 120 and the other would provide suction for fastening the gripper snorkel arrangement 100 to the gripper unit 10. The gripper unit 10 may be configured to control the suction cups 13 individually or in groups, such that that the attachment of the gripper snorkel arrangement 100 to the gripper unit 10 can be controlled independently of the suction force provided to the open end 122 of the snorkel 120. This is beneficial since it enables the snorkel 120 to drop packaging containers 20, 20′ without the gripper snorkel arrangement 100 being detached from the gripper unit 10. The gripper assembly 200 of FIG. 4 is, for illustrative purposes, shown engaging with a packaging container 20, needless to say, this may alternatively be a misplaced packaging container 20′.”).
Combining the suction mounting of Baker with the Yap and Menon combination would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of implementing the attachment strategy with vacuum force briefly discussed in Yap (see at least Yap [0400]) with a specific option of attachment using vacuum force taught by Baker in order to have options to pick up objects of multiple orientations (see at least Baker [0010]) while minimizing complexity and cost for the implementation by having a common suction source.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yap in view Menon in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0081119 (Rohanimanesh et al., hereinafter, Rohanimanesh).
Regarding Claim 15, the Yap and Menon combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap suggests wherein the task comprises one of a plurality of tasks, each task of the plurality of tasks associated with a respective object in the workspace, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine for each task a corresponding end effector to be used to perform that task and to generate a plan to perform at least a subset of the plurality of tasks, including by taking into account a cost associated with changing between two different corresponding end effectors between tasks (see at least [0296]-[0298] and [0381]-[0382]: “The robotic system, such as system 100 described above, determines whether gripping at a particular location by a finger gripper or by a suction gripper would be more effective, and if by suction, what suction nozzle size is suitable.”; “only one of the grippers is present on the end effector and the two different grippers are automatically switched as necessary”; “Embodiments of the robotic system determine probability maps for a plurality of different end effector configurations. The probability maps describe the change of a successful grasp at various locations in a scene containing one or more (generally a plurality) of objects. The system then picks a configuration based on any combination of factors, such as the configuration with the highest success probability, the configuration that will produce the fastest cycle time, the cheapest configuration, the configuration least likely to result in damage to an object, or other similar factors.”; “The above-described magnetic coupling mechanism provides a flexible manipulation solution for manipulating objects of a wide array of sizes, weights, and surfaces, while minimizing impact to cycle time. In some embodiments, the mechanism allows for quick and secure tool exchange within 0.5-1 second (e.g., 0.5 second, 0.6 second, 0.7 second, 0.8 second, 0.9 second, 1 second), compared to over 5 seconds for currently available methods.”; “Advantageously, the above-described magnetic coupling mechanism and tool rack can securely exchange tools at a speed equal to or faster than a single item pick cycle without any manual intervention. As such, potential bottleneck caused by tool changes is reduced or eliminated. For example, a warehouse that handles a wide range of package sizes may require frequent tool exchanges to allow the robotic arm to properly grip the packages during picking and sorting. Frequent tool exchanges that take over 5 seconds each time may unreasonably constrain the throughput of the picking and sorting process. However, if the tool exchange takes equal to or less than the cycle time, then the picking and sorting of different items can be streamlined more easily and be performed more efficiently.”).
However, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner introduces Rohanimanesh, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, to explicitly teach wherein the task comprises one of a plurality of tasks, each task of the plurality of tasks associated with a respective object in the workspace, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine for each task a corresponding end effector to be used to perform that task and to generate a plan to perform at least a subset of the plurality of tasks, including by taking into account a cost associated with changing between two different corresponding end effectors between tasks (see at least [0051] and [0061]-[0062]: “Our primary goal is to minimize the cost associated with changing tools, yet still maximize pick success.”; “In some embodiments, the techniques described herein relate to a method, performed by a computer, for use with a plurality of grasp prediction models having a one-to-one correspondence with a plurality of end-effectors, the method including: (A) identifying an end-effector currently attached to a robot; (B) identifying, based on an input image, a plurality of objects to be grasped by the robot; (C) selecting, using a Markov Decision Process (MDP) based on the plurality of grasp prediction models, a plurality of grasps for grasping the plurality of objects, wherein the plurality of grasps are in an ordered sequence; and (D) selecting, for each of the plurality of grasps, a corresponding end-effector.”; “ The MDP may include a set of reward balances which balances pick success and end-effector change cost.”).
Combining the cost analysis of Rohanimanesh with the Yap and Menon combination would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to with the motivation of optimizing throughput with selecting a better end effector: “While smaller vacuum end-effectors (in diameter) are naturally a better fit for tiny surfaces, larger vacuum end-effectors are proven to grasp more robustly on large surfaces and heavier objects. If a robot is to select a new end-effector to pick a particular object, the robot needs to make a decision about which end-effector to select and, if the selected end-effector is different from the current end-effector on the robot arm, the robot needs to change and swap the selected end-effector with the new one. Tool changing, however, comes at a cost of cycle time: every time the robot decides to change the tool, it has to physically navigate the end-effector to the tool changing station and swap it with the newly-selected end effector. This swapping process will add to the cycle time, thereby having a negative impact on throughput (defined as the total time required to pick all objects divided by the number of objects picked). What is needed, therefore, and what embodiments of the present invention provide, are efficient algorithms that optimize (or otherwise increase) the throughput, and possibly also while minimizing the tool changing costs.” (see at least Rohanimanesh [0002]-[0003]).
Rejection 2:
Claims 1-5, 10, 13-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yap in view of the English Translation of WO 2024/185745 (hereinafter, Son).
The Examiner notes the effective filing date of Son is prior to the effective filing date of the invention. All references to page numbers in Son refer to the page numbers of the Non-Patent Literature attachment to this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 1, Yap discloses A robotic system (see at least [0002]), comprising:
a sensor configured to generate sensor data in a workspace (see at least [0267]: “Sorting stand 150 also includes a vision system with four cameras 158, each having one or more image sensors (e.g., visible light and/or infrared sensors). The vision system can have any number of cameras and be located in other locations or supported by other structures. In some cases, cameras 158 capture image data that includes visible light data (e.g., RGB data) and/or depth information (e.g., how far objects in the image are from the camera). The captured image data is sent to the control system for processing.”); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the sensor (see at least [0262], [0265], and [0267]: “The captured image data is sent to the control system for processing”) and configured to:
use the sensor data to determine an end effector to be used to perform a task with respect to an object in the workspace (see at least [0273], [0303], [0378], [0380], and [0400]: “In some embodiments, when performing a task (e.g., picking an object having a certain size, shape, or composition, etc.) the robotic system (e.g., 800) optionally chooses an end effector among multiple end effectors”);
autonomously mount the end effector on a free moving end of a robotic arm of the robotic system (see at least [0400]: “The system is able to switch the type of end effector (e.g., switching between the gripper 1904 and gripper 2002) during the operation automatically based on the object characteristics (e.g. dimension, weight, surface material) in the tote. There are multiple types of end effectors (e.g., multiple types of cups) that are placed on a fixture nearby the robot. When the robot needs to switch the end effector, it will conduct a certain motion so that the current engaged end effector will be left on the fixture and then engage another cup on the fixture. In some cases, the end effectors are attached with magnetic force or vacuum force.”); and
use the robotic arm and the end effector to perform the task with respect to the object (see at least [0007]: “moving the robotic arm to position the end effector at the location; gripping the object at the location; and moving the object from the container on the sorting stand to a container on the receptacle stand”);
wherein the task is associated with a robotic application included in a plurality of robotic applications, each robotic application in the plurality of robotic applications being associated with a defined set of tasks or types of task and a corresponding set of end effectors associated with that robotic application…(see at least [0005], [0303], and [0314]: “The system determines whether using a finger gripper or a suction gripper is more effective for a particular object, and if by suction, what suction nozzle size is suitable”; “In some embodiments, when performing a task (e.g., picking an object having a certain size, shape, or composition, etc.) the robotic system (e.g., 800) optionally chooses an end effector among multiple end effectors”).
Yap does not appear to explicitly disclose and the end effector is selected from a set of end effectors that the processor is configured to determine and assemble in response to receiving an indication to perform the robotic application, including by determining that the set of end effectors corresponds to the indicated robotic application, gathering the determined set of end effectors, transporting the set of end effectors to the workspace, and arranging the end effectors in the set at the workspace for ready mounting, use, and unmounting.
Son, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches and the end effector is selected from a set of end effectors that the processor is configured to determine and assemble in response to receiving an indication to perform the robotic application, including by determining that the set of end effectors corresponds to the indicated robotic application, gathering the determined set of end effectors, transporting the set of end effectors to the workspace, and arranging the end effectors in the set at the workspace for ready mounting, use, and unmounting (see at least pages 10-12, page 20, and page 23: “when a task other than that of the robot tool 21 (for example, the three types of robot tools 21 (21EXA, 21EXB, 21EX) held on the belt 28 is requested, the humanoid robot 1 must be individually moved to a storage facility where the other types of robot tools 21 are kept and reattached to the belt 28”; “When the humanoid robot 1 is working on the work desk 372 and a robot tool 21 of a different type than the robot tool 21 it is holding is required, the humanoid robot 1 requests the required robot tool 21”; “the humanoid robot 1 switches from the robot tools 21EXD, 21EXE, which belong to the inspection tool group, to the robot tools 21EXF, 21EXG, which belong to the repair tool group, and performs the repair work based on the formulated work process”).
Combining the teachings of Son (acquiring the necessary end effectors) with the invention of Yap, would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of providing access to more end effectors than can be physically held at one time (see at least Son page 10).
Regarding Claim 2, the Yap and Son combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein the sensor comprises a camera and the sensor data comprises image data (see at least [0267] and [0273]: “Sorting stand 150 also includes a vision system with four cameras 158, each having one or more image sensors (e.g., visible light and/or infrared sensors). The vision system can have any number of cameras and be located in other locations or supported by other structures. In some cases, cameras 158 capture image data that includes visible light data (e.g., RGB data) and/or depth information (e.g., how far objects in the image are from the camera). The captured image data is sent to the control system for processing.”).
Regarding Claim 3, the Yap and Son combination teaches Claim 2. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein the processor is configured to use the image data to determine an attribute of the object and to determine the end effector to be used to perform the task based at least in part on the attribute (see at least [0136]-[0137], [0269], and [0303]: “The control system can then identify the object (e.g., by scanning a bar code or using image recognition or analyzing other properties of the object)”; “In some embodiments, when performing a task (e.g., picking an object having a certain size, shape, or composition, etc.) the robotic system (e.g., 800) optionally chooses an end effector among multiple end effectors”).
Regarding Claim 4, the Yap and Son combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein determining the end effector includes selecting the end effector from among a plurality of end effectors available to be mounted on the free moving end of the robotic arm (see at least [0400] and FIG. 20: “The system is able to switch the type of end effector (e.g., switching between the gripper 1904 and gripper 2002) during the operation automatically based on the object characteristics (e.g. dimension, weight, surface material) in the tote. There are multiple types of end effectors (e.g., multiple types of cups) that are placed on a fixture nearby the robot. When the robot needs to switch the end effector, it will conduct a certain motion so that the current engaged end effector will be left on the fixture and then engage another cup on the fixture. In some cases, the end effectors are attached with magnetic force or vacuum force.”).
Regarding Claim 5, the Yap and Son combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap further discloses that the robot may be mounted on a wheeled base (see at least [0080]: “In some embodiments, the receptacle stand includes wheels”). Furthermore, Son further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1 / as part of the same combination as Claim 1) wherein the robotic arm is mounted on a robotically controlled rover (see at page 2 and Figure 2: wheels 7 and 8) and wherein autonomously mounting the end effector on the free moving end of the robotic arm includes operating the rover under robotic control to position the robotic arm in a location from which the end effector is within reach of the free moving end of the robotic arm (see at least page 10: “the humanoid robot 1 must be individually moved to a storage facility where the other types of robot tools 21 are kept and reattached to the belt 28”).
Regarding Claim 10, the Yap and Son combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein autonomously mounting the end effector on the free moving end of the robotic arm includes using suction to grasp and hold the end effector to the free moving end of the robotic arm (see at least [0400]: “The system is able to switch the type of end effector (e.g., switching between the gripper 1904 and gripper 2002) during the operation automatically”; “the end effectors are attached with magnetic force or vacuum force”).
Regarding Claim 13, the Yap and Son combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein autonomously mounting the end effector includes recognizing that the end effector determined to be used to perform the task is already mounted (see at least [0378]: “while the robotic arm tool is coupled with a first detachable tool, the system determines whether a second detachable tool is needed”).
Regarding Claim 14, the Yap and Son combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein the end effector comprises a first end effector and wherein autonomously mounting the first end effector includes unmounting a second end effector mounted previously on the free moving end of the robotic arm (see at least [0379]: “In accordance with a determination that the second detachable tool is needed, the robotic arm tool decouples from the first detachable tool, for example, by mounting the first detachable tool onto an available slot on a tool rack and pulling away from the tool rack to decouple the first detachable tool from the tool changer base.”).
Regarding Claim 16, the Yap and Son combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein the task is associated with a first robotic application included in a plurality of robotic applications and wherein the processor is configured to determine a set of end effectors associated with the first robotic application and to select the end effector from among the set of end effectors associated with the first robotic application (see at least [0005] and [0314]: “The system determines whether using a finger gripper or a suction gripper is more effective for a particular object, and if by suction, what suction nozzle size is suitable”). Alternatively / additionally, Son further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1 / as part of the same combination as Claim 1) wherein the task is associated with a first robotic application included in a plurality of robotic applications and wherein the processor is configured to determine a set of end effectors associated with the first robotic application and to select the end effector from among the set of end effectors associated with the first robotic application (see at least page 20: inspection tool group, repair tool group).
Regarding Claim 17, the Yap and Son combination teaches Claim 16. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to use the robotic arm to select the set of end effectors associated with the first robotic application from a larger group of available end effectors, based at least in part on the robotic system being configured to perform tasks associated with the first robotic application (see at least [0005] and [0314]: “The system determines whether using a finger gripper or a suction gripper is more effective for a particular object, and if by suction, what suction nozzle size is suitable”).
Regarding Claim 18, the Yap and Son combination teaches Claim 16. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein the end effector is included in a set of end effectors disposed on an end effector wall (see at least [0375]-[0377] and FIG. 19H: “The tool rack can be secured in any orientation or angle, and the motion paths of the robotic arm can be programmed accordingly to achieve coupling and decoupling described above. For example, the tool rack can be secured in an upright orientation, with the widened openings of the slots facing upward.“).
Regarding Claim 19, Yap discloses A method (see at least [0261]). All other limitations of this claim are substantially similar to limitations in Claim 1 and the rejection for Claim 1 should be referenced.
Regarding Claim 20, Yap discloses A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions (see at least [0263]). All other limitations of this claim are substantially similar to limitations in Claim 1 and the rejection for Claim 1 should be referenced.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yap in view of Son in further view of Menon.
Regarding Claim 6, the Yap and Son combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap discloses determining a location of the detachable tool in the rack (see at least [0378]-[0380]). Yap and Son combination does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the sensor data comprises RF tag data associated with the end effector and the processor is configured to use the RF tag data to locate and mount the end effector to be used to perform the task.
Menon, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein the sensor data comprises RF tag data associated with the end effector and the processor is configured to use the RF tag data to locate and mount the end effector to be used to perform the task (see at least [0048]: “The robot may be configured, e.g., via a model, configuration data, sensing (e.g., reading a bar code or RF tag), and/or other data to know which tool is located in which tool holder”).
Combining the Yap and Son combination with the RF tag sensing of Menon would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of adding a known method of confirming the end effector with high accuracy even when visual sensing may not be available (see at least Menon [0048]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yap in view of Son in further view of Adachi.
Regarding Claim 7, the Yap and Son combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap discloses / suggests wherein autonomously mounting the end effector on the free moving end of the robotic arm includes using computer vision to move an end effector mount structure on the free moving end of the robotic arm to a position adjacent to a corresponding structure on the end effector… (see at least [0002], [0006], [0367], [0375]: “This relates generally to pick and place robotic systems that use artificial intelligence, computer vision, and/or mechanical systems to sort and place objects from input containers (or other receptacles) to multiple corresponding receptacle destinations”; “In operation, the robotic arm moves to place the tool changer base in proximity to (e.g., over) a detachable tool mounted over the tool rack. The tool changer base is lowered in the z direction such that it makes contact with the detachable tool. According to the magnetic coupling mechanism described above, the tool changer base and the proximal end of the detachable tool are coupled together in an aligned and centered manner. After coupling is achieved, the robotic arm moves the detachable tool out of the notch (e.g., via a movement on the x-y plane) and away from the tool rack. In some embodiments, after the robotic arm moves the detachable tool out of the notch such that the groove section of the detachable tool no longer interfaces with the notch, the robotic arm subsequently pulls upwards in the z direction to move the detachable tool away from the tool rack”; using the computer vision system of Yap for the tool alignment would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation ensuring alignment even if the position of the tool rack is moved).
The Yap and Son combination does not explicitly teach using force control to engage the end effector mount structure with the corresponding structure on the end effector.
Adachi, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches using force control to engage the end effector mount structure with the corresponding structure on the end effector (see at least [0051] and FIG. 1: “Particularly, in the embodiment, the robot 2 has the force detection sensor 28. Accordingly, the force applied to the force detection sensor 28 is fed back to the control apparatus 6, and thereby, for example, the coupling between the robot 2 and the first hand 51 or the second hand 52 may be performed at a lower failure frequency in a shorter time”).
Combining the force control of Adachi with the Yap and Son combination would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of lowering the failure rate of attaching a new end effector (see at least Adachi [0051]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yap in view of Son in further view of Baker.
Regarding Claim 11, the Yap and Son combination teaches Claim 10. Furthermore, Yap further discloses wherein the end effector comprises a suction end effector (see at least [0393]: “a vacuum flow is created through the primary chamber 2106 of loose bag cup gripper 2002 (e.g., via an air flow source) and the bag 2004 is drawn upward into the primary chamber 2106 through the opening at the distal end 2104”) and wherein …suction …is further supplied to the end effector as a resource (see at least [0399]: “In operation, the modified loose bag cup gripper 2002 is placed at a desirable location in proximity to a target item. The robotic system then activates a vacuum pass-through such that the modified loose bag cup gripper 2002 applies a vertical suction force to the target item.”).
The Yap and Son combination does not explicitly teach wherein the suction used to grasp and hold the end effector to the free moving end of the robotic arm is further supplied to the end effector as a resource.
Baker, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein the suction used to grasp and hold the end effector to the free moving end of the robotic arm is further supplied to the end effector as a resource (see at least [0055] and FIG. 4: “FIG. 4 depicts a cross sectional view of a gripper assembly 200 comprising the gripper snorkel arrangement 100 attached to the gripper unit 10. Suction cups 13 of the gripper unit 10 are aligned to interface with the holes 115 of the interface plate 110. The suction cups 13 interfacing with the holes 115 may be used to provide a suction force that is transferred from the suction cups 13 to the open end 122 of the snorkel 120 via the holes 115 and the inner lumen 125 of the snorkel 120. Not shown in FIG. 4, there may be suction cups 13 comprised in the gripper unit 10 interfacing with sections of the interface plate 110 not being provided with holes 115. Since the interface plate 110 is substantially planar, these suction cups 13 will attach the snorkel arrangement to the gripper unit by means of suction. The control suction cup 14 in FIG. 4 may of course be replaced with a normal suction cup 13 used for providing an attachment means. If the gripper snorkel arrangement of FIG. 4 would have been provided with only one hole 115, one of the suction cups 13 shown in FIG. 4 would provide suction force to the open end 122 of the snorkel 120 and the other would provide suction for fastening the gripper snorkel arrangement 100 to the gripper unit 10. The gripper unit 10 may be configured to control the suction cups 13 individually or in groups, such that that the attachment of the gripper snorkel arrangement 100 to the gripper unit 10 can be controlled independently of the suction force provided to the open end 122 of the snorkel 120. This is beneficial since it enables the snorkel 120 to drop packaging containers 20, 20′ without the gripper snorkel arrangement 100 being detached from the gripper unit 10. The gripper assembly 200 of FIG. 4 is, for illustrative purposes, shown engaging with a packaging container 20, needless to say, this may alternatively be a misplaced packaging container 20′.”).
Combining the suction mounting of Baker with the Yap and Son combination would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of implementing the attachment strategy with vacuum force briefly discussed in Yap (see at least Yap [0400]) with a specific option of attachment using vacuum force taught by Baker in order to have options to pick up objects of multiple orientations (see at least Baker [0010]) while minimizing complexity and cost for the implementation by having a common suction source.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yap in view Son in further view of Rohanimanesh.
Regarding Claim 15, the Yap and Son combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap suggests wherein the task comprises one of a plurality of tasks, each task of the plurality of tasks associated with a respective object in the workspace, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine for each task a corresponding end effector to be used to perform that task and to generate a plan to perform at least a subset of the plurality of tasks, including by taking into account a cost associated with changing between two different corresponding end effectors between tasks (see at least [0296]-[0298] and [0381]-[0382]: “The robotic system, such as system 100 described above, determines whether gripping at a particular location by a finger gripper or by a suction gripper would be more effective, and if by suction, what suction nozzle size is suitable.”; “only one of the grippers is present on the end effector and the two different grippers are automatically switched as necessary”; “Embodiments of the robotic system determine probability maps for a plurality of different end effector configurations. The probability maps describe the change of a successful grasp at various locations in a scene containing one or more (generally a plurality) of objects. The system then picks a configuration based on any combination of factors, such as the configuration with the highest success probability, the configuration that will produce the fastest cycle time, the cheapest configuration, the configuration least likely to result in damage to an object, or other similar factors.”; “The above-described magnetic coupling mechanism provides a flexible manipulation solution for manipulating objects of a wide array of sizes, weights, and surfaces, while minimizing impact to cycle time. In some embodiments, the mechanism allows for quick and secure tool exchange within 0.5-1 second (e.g., 0.5 second, 0.6 second, 0.7 second, 0.8 second, 0.9 second, 1 second), compared to over 5 seconds for currently available methods.”; “Advantageously, the above-described magnetic coupling mechanism and tool rack can securely exchange tools at a speed equal to or faster than a single item pick cycle without any manual intervention. As such, potential bottleneck caused by tool changes is reduced or eliminated. For example, a warehouse that handles a wide range of package sizes may require frequent tool exchanges to allow the robotic arm to properly grip the packages during picking and sorting. Frequent tool exchanges that take over 5 seconds each time may unreasonably constrain the throughput of the picking and sorting process. However, if the tool exchange takes equal to or less than the cycle time, then the picking and sorting of different items can be streamlined more easily and be performed more efficiently.”).
However, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner introduces Rohanimanesh, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, to explicitly teach wherein the task comprises one of a plurality of tasks, each task of the plurality of tasks associated with a respective object in the workspace, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine for each task a corresponding end effector to be used to perform that task and to generate a plan to perform at least a subset of the plurality of tasks, including by taking into account a cost associated with changing between two different corresponding end effectors between tasks (see at least [0051] and [0061]-[0062]: “Our primary goal is to minimize the cost associated with changing tools, yet still maximize pick success.”; “In some embodiments, the techniques described herein relate to a method, performed by a computer, for use with a plurality of grasp prediction models having a one-to-one correspondence with a plurality of end-effectors, the method including: (A) identifying an end-effector currently attached to a robot; (B) identifying, based on an input image, a plurality of objects to be grasped by the robot; (C) selecting, using a Markov Decision Process (MDP) based on the plurality of grasp prediction models, a plurality of grasps for grasping the plurality of objects, wherein the plurality of grasps are in an ordered sequence; and (D) selecting, for each of the plurality of grasps, a corresponding end-effector.”; “ The MDP may include a set of reward balances which balances pick success and end-effector change cost.”).
Combining the cost analysis of Rohanimanesh with the Yap and Son combination would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to with the motivation of optimizing throughput with selecting a better end effector: “While smaller vacuum end-effectors (in diameter) are naturally a better fit for tiny surfaces, larger vacuum end-effectors are proven to grasp more robustly on large surfaces and heavier objects. If a robot is to select a new end-effector to pick a particular object, the robot needs to make a decision about which end-effector to select and, if the selected end-effector is different from the current end-effector on the robot arm, the robot needs to change and swap the selected end-effector with the new one. Tool changing, however, comes at a cost of cycle time: every time the robot decides to change the tool, it has to physically navigate the end-effector to the tool changing station and swap it with the newly-selected end effector. This swapping process will add to the cycle time, thereby having a negative impact on throughput (defined as the total time required to pick all objects divided by the number of objects picked). What is needed, therefore, and what embodiments of the present invention provide, are efficient algorithms that optimize (or otherwise increase) the throughput, and possibly also while minimizing the tool changing costs.” (see at least Rohanimanesh [0002]-[0003]).
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2026/0257373 which is in the same patent family as Son.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
