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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2 and 4-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,138,807 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘807 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims of the ‘807 patent.
Regarding claim 2, the ‘807 patent recites a system, comprising: (column 7, line 56)a communication interface associated with a first robot having a first end effector, the communication interface configured to (column 7, lines 58-60): receive from a second robot an end effector position and orientation of a second end effector associated with the second robot relative to the object associated with the cooperative task (column 7, lines 64-67); and a processor associated with the first robot coupled to the communication interface and configured to (column 8, lines 1-2): cause a robotic arm of the first robot having the first end effector to move to a first grasp point to grasp the object based on a second grasp point at which the second robot has indicated it will grasp the object (column 8, lines 6-8); and compute a new target position and orientation for the first end effector based in part on the received end effector position and the received orientation information of the second end effector of the second robot relative to the object associated with the cooperative task and information about the object associated with the cooperative task (column 8, lines 9-16).
Regarding claim 4, the ‘807 patent recites the system of claim 2, wherein the second robot is in a leader mode of operation (column 8, lines 17-18).
Regarding claim 5, the ‘807 patent recites the system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to plan a trajectory to move the first end effector to the first grasp point (column 8, lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 6, the ‘807 patent recites the system of claim 2, wherein the first grasp point is on an opposite side of the object from a side at which the second robot has indicated it will grasp the object (column 8, lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 7, the ‘807 patent recites the system of claim 2, wherein the information about the object associated with the cooperative task includes a size of the object in a dimension that separates the second end effector and the first end effector (column 8, lines 25-28).
Regarding claim 8, the ‘807 patent recites the system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to cause torque to be applied to one or more motors based on the computed new target position and orientation for the first end effector (column 8, lines 29-33).
Regarding claim 9, the ‘807 patent recites the system of claim 8, wherein the applied torque minimizes a difference between a current position and/or orientation of the first end effector, and the new target position and orientation (column 8, lines 34-37).
Regarding claim 10, the ‘807 patent recites the system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to provide to the second robot an indication that the object has been grasped and the first end effector is ready to maintain its position relative to the second end effector associated with the second robot (column 8, lines 38-42).
Regarding claim 11, the ‘807 patent recites the system of claim 2, wherein the communication interface is further configured to receive from the second robot an indication that a cooperative task of moving the object has been completed (column 8, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 12, the ‘807 patent recites the system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the grasp of the object to be released in response to receiving an indication that the cooperative task of moving the object has been completed (column 8, lines 47-51).
Regarding claim 13, the ‘807 patent recites the system of claim 2, wherein the first end effector is a suction type end effector (column 8, lines 52-53).
Regarding claim 14, the ‘807 patent recites the system of claim 2, wherein the first end effector is a gripper type end effector (column 8, lines 54-55).
Regarding claim 15, the ‘807 patent recites the system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to compute a transform to be applied to the received end effector position and the received orientation (column 8, lines 56-59).
Regarding claim 16, the ‘807 patent recites the system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to use velocity control to match a corresponding velocity of the second end effector associated with the second robot (column 8, lines 60-63).
Regarding claim 17, the ‘807 patent recites the system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to use force control to maintain engagement of the first end effector with the object as the object is moved through a trajectory (column 8, lines 64-67).
Regarding claim 18, the ‘807 patent recites a method, comprising: moving a robotic arm associated with the first robot having a first end effector to a first grasp point to grasp the object based on a second grasp point at which a second robot has indicated it will grasp the object (column 9, lines 8-10); receiving from the second robot an end effector position and orientation of a second end effector associated with the second robot relative to the object associated with the cooperative task (column 9, lines 11-15); and computing a new target position and orientation for the first end effector associated with the first robot based in part on the received end effector position and the received orientation information of the second end effector associated with the second robot relative to the object associated with the cooperative task and information about the object associated with the cooperative task (column 9, lines 16-23).
Regarding claim 19, the ‘807 patent recites the method of claim 18, wherein the second robot is in a leader mode of operation (column 9, lines 24-25).
Regarding claim 20, the ‘807 patent recites the method of claim 18, further comprising planning a trajectory to move the first end effector associated with the first robot to the first grasp point (column 9, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 21, the ‘807 patent recites the method of claim 18, wherein the first grasp point is on an opposite side of the object from a side at which the second robot has indicated it will grasp the object (column 10, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 22, the ‘807 patent recites a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for (column 10, lines 4-6): moving a robotic arm associated with the first robot having a first end effector to a first grasp point to grasp the object based on a second grasp point at which a second robot has indicated it will grasp the object (column 10, lines 13-15); receiving from the second robot an end effector position and orientation of a second end effector associated with the second robot relative to the object associated with the cooperative task (column 10, lines 16-19); and computing a new target position and orientation for the first end effector associated with the first robot based in part on the received end effector position and the received orientation information of the second end effector associated with the second robot relative to the object associated with the task and information about the object associated with the task (column 10, lines 20-27).
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of the ‘807 patent as applied above with respect to claim 1 and further in view of Wang (US 2019/0283255 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the ‘807 patent is silent with respect to the second robot is in a follower mode of operation. However, Wang teaches a technique assigning a first robot as a leader robot and a second robot as a follower robot based on a competency score where a robot not having a highest competency score is placed into a follower mode of operation (Wang, Fig. 1A, step 30, Fig. 1B, step 104-105, Fig. 2 element 204 and paragraphs 0058-0066, 0073-0074, 0080, 0138-0142). The claimed invention is an obvious variation of the invention defined by claims 1-20 of the ‘807 patent in view of the technique taught by Wang. Application of the known technique taught by Wang to the invention defined by the ‘807 patent is obvious because such application is well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and because such application yields predictable results. The predictable results including: the invention defined by the ‘807 patent being further configured such that the second robot is in a follower mode of operation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2-17, claim 2 recites the limitation requiring “the object associated with the cooperative task” on line of claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Regarding claims 18-21: claim 18 recites the limitation requiring “the first robot” on line 2 of claim 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Further, claim 18 recites the limitation requiring “the object” on line 3 of claim 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Finally, claim 18 recites the limitation requiring “the cooperative task” on lines 6-7 of claim 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 22: claim 22 recites the limitation requiring “the first robot” on line 3 of claim 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, claim 18 recites the limitation requiring “the object” on line 4 of claim 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Finally, claim 18 recites the limitation requiring “the cooperative task” on lines 7-8 of claim 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE MOYER whose telephone number is (571)270-7821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PT.
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, Khoi H Tran can be reached at 571-272-6919. 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.
/Dale Moyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656