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.
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.
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 Claims 8-9 and 12 are withdrawn for being drawn to a non-elected species. Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 15, and 18-20 are amended.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the non-final rejection dated 3 March 2026.
Applicant’s argument that communication interface should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not persuasive. Applicant has not presented a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid the claim limitation being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Applicant argues “A person of ordinary skill in the art of robotics would understand the term “communications interface” to refer to a specific structure, e.g., a circuit or other mechanism through which two devices can exchange information and interact with each other”. Applicant’s alleged structure includes an example of “other mechanism through which two devices can exchange information and interact with each other”, which is not sufficient structure and is merely a placeholder for the function.
All claim objections from the prior office action are withdrawn. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the prior office action is withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument, filed 15 June 2026, that the anticipatory reference from the prior office action no longer discloses the entirely of the amended independent claims has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 from the prior office action has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection (under 35 U.S.C. 103) is made (see below). The new grounds of rejection was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2 April 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“communication interface configured to” (Claim 1)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to paragraph [0033] of the specification, the “control computer 120 is in wireless communication with the robot 102, 104 and the camera 112, in other embodiments wired or other connections may be used” and FIG. 1 shows antennas; therefore, a “communication interface” is an antenna, wire, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because “wherein the task is associated with a robotic application and the end effector is selected from a set of end effectors and further comprising computer instructions to determine and assemble in response to receiving an indication to perform the robotic application” should be “wherein the task is associated with a robotic application and the end effector is selected from a set of end effectors and further comprising computer instructions to determine and assemble the set of end effectors in response to receiving an indication to perform the robotic application” (i.e., reworded to clarify the claim is similar in scope to Claims 1 and 19). 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.
Claims 1-6, 10, 13-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0017317 (Yap and Yu, hereinafter, Yap) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0070361 (Menon et al., hereinafter, Menon).
Regarding Claim 1, Yap discloses A robotic system (see at least [0002]), comprising:
communication interface configured to receive sensor data from a sensor in a workspace (see at least [0263], [0265], and [0267]: “information is transferred or provided over a network or another communications connection (either hardwired, wireless, or combination thereof) to a computer”; “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 coupled to the communication interface (see at least [0262] and [0265]) 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 and the end effector is selected from a set of end effectors…(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”).
Yap does not appear to explicitly disclose 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.
Menon, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches 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 (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 (assembling 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 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) 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 can be interpreted 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. 2021/0122043 (Menon et al., hereinafter, Menon 2021).
Regarding Claim 7, the Yap and Menon combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yap discloses computer vision (see at least [0002] and [0006]) and wherein autonomously mounting the end effector on the free moving end of the robotic arm includes…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 and …engage to engage the end effector mount structure with the corresponding structure on the end effector (see at least [0267]: “when the tool changer base 1924 and the detachable tool 1926 are placed in proximity with each other, the embedded magnet 1930 and the embedded magnet 1932 are coupled together via magnetic force”). However, Yap describes this primarily for the method of magnetic force attachment and Yap does not disclose the details for “the end effectors are attached with magnetic force or vacuum force” (see at least [0400]).
Yap does not explicitly disclose using computer vision to align components and using force control to engage the components.
Menon 2021, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches using computer vision to align components and using force control to engage the components (see at least [0025]-[0026], [0036], [0043], and FIG. 4: “one or more of position control, force control, and computer vision-based control (e.g., from 2D and/or 3D cameras providing image and/or depth data)”; “Force control is used to carefully probe until the part is determined to be at least partly aligned with the slot”; “In various embodiments, position control is used to position each item in proximity to its destination slot or other location, and force control primitives are used to align (or verify alignment of) the respective structures of the item with corresponding cavities in the destination location of the item and to “slot” or insert the item into its location. In various embodiments, the force control ensures that the slot located and the part aligned and inserted into the slot with force sufficient to overcome friction and insert the item despite tight tolerances, all without damaging either the receptacle (e.g., due to damage to the foam or other insert) or the item.”; “FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating an embodiment of a process to place items in corresponding locations in a receptacle. In various embodiments, the process 400 of FIG. 4 is performed by a computer, such as control computer 122 of FIG. 1. The process 400 may be performed to pick/place items, as in step 306 of the process 300 of FIG. 3. In the example shown in FIG. 4, at 402 a next item is picked from a source receptacle. For example, a robotic arm and end effector may be used to grasp an item, as in the example shown in FIGS. 2A through 2C. At 404, position control is used to move the item to the vicinity of a destination location, such as a corresponding slot in a destination receptacle, in which the item grasped at 402 is to be placed. Image data, such as generated by cameras in the workspace (e.g., cameras 114, 116 of FIG. 1A) may be used to generate a three-dimensional view of the workspace, and at 404 the three-dimensional view may be used to move the items grasped at 402 to a corresponding slot in a destination receptacle. At 406, force control is used, as need, to align the item with its corresponding slot and to slide the item into the slot.”).
It 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 combine the teachings of Menon 2021 with Yap with the motivation of using control methods to reduce the risk of damage during mating (see at least Menon 2021 [0040]).
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.”).
Yap does not explicitly disclose 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′.”).
It 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 combine the teachings of Baker with Yap with the motivation of implementing the attachment strategy with vacuum force broadly disclosed 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, Yap does not appear to explicitly disclose 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.
Rohanimanesh, in the same field of robotics, and therefore analogous art, teaches 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.”).
It 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 combine the teachings of Rohanimanesh with Yap 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]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. 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
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights