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 (or as subject to pre-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.
Priority
The instant application is a continuation (at the time of filing) of application 17/827,655, which is abandoned at the time of writing this office action. The applicant has satisfied the requirements of MPEP 201.08 and 37 C.F.R. 1.78(d), wherein the applicants contain joint inventors, the application was filed before the abandonment of the earlier-filed application (17/827,655), and the instant application specification directly contains a specific reference to the earlier filed application.
The priority/domestic benefit of an earlier effective filing date (versus actual filing date) is only granted when there is sufficient written description in the earlier-filed priority/domestic benefit documents for all claimed limitations. Priority is established on a claim-by-claim basis. The examiner reviewed provisional application 63/193,775 (filed 27 May 2021, which was the provisional application that provided priority to now-abandoned application 17/827,655) and notes that the currently presented claim 2 (the only independent claim in the claim set) does not have sufficient support from provisional application 63/193,775 to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date from this application. Particularly, the limitation in claim 2 of "wherein the system further comprises a second imaging device operatively coupled to the first computing system…" recites elements such as a second imaging device and fitting a bounding box which were not explicitly described in provisional application 63/193,775.
However, the examiner has reviewed now-abandoned application 17/827,655 and found that sufficient support for the elements noted above exist. As such, the effective filing date of each of the instant application's claims under examination (with the exception of the new matter claims noted below) may be as recent as the instant application's filing date of 15 October 2024 or earlier filing of 27 May 2022 from application 17/827,655 (presuming there is appropriate specification support for each particular claim in that earlier-filed specification). In the case that a prior art rejection to one or more claims made in an Office action during prosecution of the instant application includes one or more prior art references that fall somewhere between 27 May 2022 and 15 October 2024, if Applicant can specifically identify appropriate specification support for each of these claims in an earlier filed portion of this complex continuity chain, then the Examiner may determine that one or more of these prior art rejections against one or more of these claims will need to be withdrawn.
The examiner also notes that priority is established on a claim-by-claim basis. Certain claims do not have sufficient specification support to be granted the benefit of earlier priority, as noted further below in the PRELIMINARY AMENDMENT section.
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of a preliminary amendment prior to the first office action. The examiner has reviewed the amendment and determined that new matter was entered. Particular instances of new matter are summarized below and in corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections.
Claim 6: The term “lifting fork configuration” is not described in the specification and was not an originally presented claim.
Claim 7: The examiner was unable to locate where in the specification that the placement tray is operatively connected to actuators that change the orientation of the tray and was not an originally presented claim.
Claim 41: The examiner was unable to locate where in the specification that a case where “an estimate whether a plurality of packages, or zero packages, have been yielded” and was not an originally presented claim.
Claim 42: The examiner was unable to locate where in the specification that grasps are aborted after a determination of whether a plurality of packages, or zero packages, have been yielded and was not an originally presented claim.
Claim 45: The examiner was unable to locate where in the specification that the object is “dragged” to a ramp and was not an originally presented claim.
Claim 46: The examiner was unable to locate where in the specification that the object is intentionally placed on an edge to topple and was not an originally presented claim.
Claim 47: The examiner was unable to locate where in the specification that the object is “swept across a surface of the place structure to remain substantially flat” and was not an originally presented claim.
For all of the above claims, a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection is provided below. The examiner performed a best effort to locate art which read upon the limitations of concern where possible/applicable despite the new matter.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The final sentence of the abstract is cut off.
The abstract is too lengthy and should be kept between 50-150 words per MPEP 608.01 and 37 C.F.R. 1.77.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Further, the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0035] states "Another embodiment is diredted to…", containing a misspelling of the word "directed".
Paragraph [0037] appears to be mistakenly separated from paragraph [0036] despite being a continuation of paragraph [0036].
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 25 June 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 34, 38, 44-47 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 states “…when the vacuum load is controllably activated adjacent the targeted package;” but appears to be missing a word such as “to” before “the targeted package” to result in ““…when the vacuum load is controllably activated adjacent to the targeted package;”.
Claim 2 states “estimating L-W-H”, but does not first define this term in the claims; the claim should state “estimating length, width, and height” if this is the intent.
Claim 34 currently depends upon claim 32, however the examiner believes that claim 33 is intended.
Claim 38 states “…when the vacuum load is controllably activated adjacent the targeted package;” but appears to be missing a word such as “to” before “the targeted package” to result in ““…when the vacuum load is controllably activated adjacent to the targeted package;”.
Claim 44 states “the first computing device”, however the term “first computing device” lacks antecedent basis. The examiner notes that the term “device” may have been mistakenly entered instead of the intended “system” as noted in claim 2.
Claim 45 states “to place with targeted package” whereas the examiner believes that “to place the targeted package” is intended.
Claim 46 states “to place with targeted package” whereas the examiner believes that “to place the targeted package” is intended.
Claim 47 states “to place with targeted package” whereas the examiner believes that “to place the targeted package” is intended.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations 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 limitations are:
first imaging device - claim 2, 10-12
second imaging device - claim 2, 40-41
third imaging device - claim 39
computing device - claim 14, 44
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding the "imaging devices", paragraph [0082] provides the requisite for understanding.
Regarding "computing device", paragraphs [0098-0099] and Figure [12] provide the requisite for understanding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
PART I – 112(a)
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-7, 41-42 (and 43-44 due to dependency), and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The examiner notes that the originally-filed claim set had one pending claim, but applicant filed a preliminary amendment cancelling claim 1 and adding new claims 2-47. The examiner notes that certain claims added do not have sufficient specification support to convey that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6: The term “lifting fork configuration” is not described in the specification and was not an originally presented claim.
Claim 7: The examiner was unable to locate where in the specification that the placement tray is operatively connected to actuators that change the orientation of the tray and was not an originally presented claim.
Claim 41: The examiner was unable to locate where in the specification that a case where “an estimate whether a plurality of packages, or zero packages, have been yielded” and was not an originally presented claim.
Claim 42: The examiner was unable to locate where in the specification that grasps are aborted after a determination of whether a plurality of packages, or zero packages, have been yielded and was not an originally presented claim.
Claim 45: The examiner was unable to locate where in the specification that the object is “dragged” to a ramp and was not an originally presented claim.
Claim 46: The examiner was unable to locate where in the specification that the object is intentionally placed on an edge to topple and was not an originally presented claim.
Claim 47: The examiner was unable to locate where in the specification that the object is “swept across a surface of the place structure to remain substantially flat” and was not an originally presented claim.
Thus, claims 6-7 and 41-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
PART II – 112(b)
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 6, 22, and 33-35 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.
PROBLEM 1: Claim 6 states “lifting fork configuration”. The examiner is unaware of a well-understood meaning to this term and the specification does not utilize this terminology to convey what it may mean to a reader. Therefore, the “configuration” at hand appears to convey a particular intent without adequately supporting what constitutes a “lifting fork configuration” versus any other configuration. The examiner is unable to attempt to locate prior art this claim as the examiner is unable to ascertain the explicit meaning or the intended meaning of this term. Therefore, a corresponding prior art rejection for this claim is withheld at this time.
PROBLEM 2: Claim 22 states “in a purely geometric fashion”, which contains two sub-issues, the first being use of “purely” (is a disclosure that includes additional considerations excluded?), and the second being the word “fashion” (which appears to convey a term of relative degree, falling under MPEP 2173.05(b)). Ultimately, the language chosen is imprecise and fails to distinctly and explicitly point out the claimed subject matter.
PROBLEM 3: Claim 33 states “a ‘poly bag’, a ‘poly’, … a ‘jiffy’ bag, a ‘jiffy’ envelope…”. The examiner notes that these terms are trade names. MPEP 2173.05(u) states “If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). See also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 837 Fed. Appx. 780, 784-85, 2020 USPQ2d 11531 (Fed. Cir. 2020)”. Thus, the trade terms noted above render the claim indefinite. As the dependent claims fail to cure this deficiency, claims 35 and 36 are also rejected.
Therefore, the examiner notes that the above phrases are indefinite and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above (with the exception of claim 6, as noted above).
As claims 35 and 36 depend upon rejected claim 33 but fail to cure the deficiencies noted, they are rejected by dependency. Thus, claims 6, 22, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 2, 5, 8-12, 14-16, 33, 35-37, 39, 41-42, 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka et al. (US 2020/0078941 A1; hereinafter Oka) in view of Terhuja et al. (US 12,064,886 B1, Filed 23 Mar 2021).
Regarding independent claim 2 (system): Oka discloses A robotic package handling system, comprising: (Paragraph [0044] and Figure [1-2], Oka discloses a robot package handling system)
a. a robotic arm comprising a distal portion and a proximal base portion; (Paragraph [0044-0045] and Figure [1-2], Oka discloses a manipulator (robotic arm) comprising a hand (end effector) and base, as seen in the figures (both a distal and proximal portion))
b. an end effector coupled to the distal portion of the robotic arm; (Paragraph [0044-0045] and Figure [1-2], Oka discloses a manipulator (robotic arm) comprising a hand (end effector) on the distal end)
c. a place structure positioned in geometric proximity to the distal portion of the robotic arm; (Paragraph [0053] and Figure [1], Oka discloses a placement structure where the arm may place objects (thus, in “geometric proximity” based on reach of the arm))
d. a pick structure in contact with one or more packages and positioned in geometric proximity to the distal portion of the robotic arm; (Paragraph [0053] and Figure [1], Oka discloses a picking structure where the arm may retrieve incoming objects (thus, in “geometric proximity” based on reach of the arm), the container contains the packages/objects (thus, “in contact”))
e. a first imaging device positioned and oriented to capture image information pertaining to the pick structure and one or more packages; (Paragraph [0053] and Figure [1], Oka discloses a plurality of cameras, the first of which acquires an image of the object to be picked and the picking structure)
f. a first computing system operatively coupled to the robotic arm and the first imaging device, and configured to receive the image information from the first imaging device and command movements of the robotic arm based at least in part upon the image information; (Paragraph [0061, 0066, 0082] and Figure [1-2], Oka discloses an interconnected system with a control device that receives image information to generate motion plan information)
wherein the first computing system is configured to operate the robotic arm and end effector to conduct a grasp of a targeted package of the one or more packages from the pick structure, and release the targeted package to rest upon the place structure; and (Paragraph [0053, 0055, 0063-0065] and Figure [1-2], Oka discloses a control system that obtains image information, forms a grasp (picking) plan, and a release (placement) plan to take an object from the pick location to the place location)
wherein the end effector comprises a first suction cup assembly coupled to a controllably activated vacuum load operatively coupled to the first computing system, the first suction cup assembly configured such that conducting the grasp comprises engaging the targeted package when the vacuum load is controllably activated adjacent the targeted package; (Paragraph [0046, 0074, 0086] and Figure [1], Oka discloses that the grasping method includes suction while the suction pad is “sufficiently in contact with the object” (adjacent to the target package). The robot controller operates according to the plan and causes the hand/end effector to perform a grasping motion including suction)
wherein the system further comprises a second imaging device operatively coupled to the first computing system and positioned and oriented to capture one or more images of the targeted package after the grasp has been conducted using the end effector to estimate the outer dimensional bounds of the targeted package by fitting a [3-D] rectangular [prism] around the targeted package and estimating L-W[-H] of said rectangular [prism], and to utilize the fitted [3-D] rectangular [prism] to estimate a position and an orientation of the targeted package relative to the end effector; and (Paragraph [0051-0056, 0090-0091, 0180-0181] and Figure [1-2, 3, 28], Oka discloses a plurality of “second” imaging devices, including a calibration camera, release camera, and temporary placement camera, any of which constitutes a “second camera”, the cameras interconnected with the control system. The method outlined in Figure [3] clearly shows that step S3 performs an initial “acquire image information” step, steps S7-S8 perform a grasp, and step S10 (performed after the preceding steps) performs a second image acquiring step, wherein the following step S11 generates object information from this step. Per paragraph [0090], “The integrator 51 controls the camera 32-3 to acquire an image of the hand 22 grasping the object OBJ at the position”. Per paragraph [0091], object information generated (from the second image step above) includes posture (position and orientation) of the object with respect to the end effector in addition to a shape of the object. Per paragraph [0181], the shape is set to a rectangular region circumscribing the shape of the object. Figure [28] shows the circumscribed shape)
wherein the first computing system is configured to operate the robotic arm and end effector to place the targeted package upon the place structure in a specific position and orientation relative to the place structure. (Paragraph [0055, 0092-0093, 0100] and Figure [1, 3], Oka discloses planning and execution of a release plan to place the object into a release position (place structure), wherein the release information generated includes position and posture (position and orientation))
Oka then differs from the instant application claim by way of lacking explicit disclosure that the bounding region is three-dimensional. However, use of a 3D bounding region is well known in the art and an obvious modification of Oka, as Oka explicitly discloses that the cameras used (to create the bounding box) return three-dimensional information (Paragraph [0051]).
Terhuja, in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems, teaches fitting a 3-D rectangular prism around the targeted package and estimating L-W-H of said rectangular prism, and to utilize the fitted 3-D rectangular prism to estimate a position and an orientation of the targeted package (Column [4] Lines [44-67] and Figure [1], Terhuja teaches a computer vision system that establishes a bounding box (a 3D box with depth) around the item of concern with certain dimensions in 3D space, including as shown, a length, width, and height in the case of a rectangular prism (as seen in Figure [1]), to be used to determine the pose of the object)
Oka and Terhuja are in a similar field of endeavor of robotic pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to further include a 3D bounding box as taught by Terhuja, as this is implicitly taught in the disclosure of Oka. As noted above, Oka explicitly discloses that the cameras used (to create the bounding box) return three-dimensional information (Paragraph [0051]) but merely only shows a two-dimensional example of the bounding box from a certain point of view. Merely altering the disclosure of Oka to include a 3D bounding box utilizes implicit disclosure of Oka to include a 3D bounding box, and use of a 3D bounding box was also well-known in the art at the time of effective filing. One would have been motivated to make this combination for the benefit of added accuracy provided by depth information (Column [11], Lines [19-40] of Terhuja disclose the benefit of a more accurate model, that they do not intersect other objects/cause collision).
Regarding claim 5: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka further discloses wherein the place structure comprises a placement tray. (Paragraph [0055] and Figure [1], Oka discloses a placement container (tray))
Regarding claim 8: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka further discloses wherein the pick structure comprises an element selected from the group consisting of: a bin, a tray, a fixed surface, and a movable surface. (Paragraph [0055] and Figure [1], Oka discloses a bin/container)
Regarding claim 9: Parent claim 8 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka further discloses wherein the pick structure comprises a bin configured to define a package containment volume bounded by a bottom and a plurality of walls, as well as an open access aperture configured to accommodate entry and egress of at least the distal portion of the robotic arm. (Paragraph [0053] and Figure [1], Oka discloses a container with walls and an opening)
Regarding claim 10: Parent claim 9 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka further discloses wherein the first imaging device is configured to capture the image information pertaining to the pick structure and one or more packages through the open access aperture. (Paragraph [0053] and Figure [1], Oka discloses that the grasping camera 32-1 (first camera) obtains image information of the container housing the object)
Regarding claim 11: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka further discloses wherein the first imaging device comprises a depth camera. (Paragraph [0051], Oka discloses cameras with distance (Depth) sensing)
Regarding claim 12: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka further discloses wherein the first imaging device is configured to capture color image data. (Paragraph [0051], Oka discloses RGB (color) cameras)
Regarding claim 14: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka further discloses wherein the first computing system comprises a network of intercoupled computing devices, at least one of which is remotely located relative to the robotic arm. (Paragraph [0057, 0231-0233], Oka discloses an interconnected computing system with network elements. Further, as “remote” is broadly interpreted, any location outside of the arm itself falls under this terminology)
Regarding claim 15: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka further discloses further comprising a second computing system operatively coupled to the first computing system. (Paragraph [0059, 0067] and Figure [2], Oka discloses peripherals (piece 70 and 71, as examples) coupled to the control device, the peripheral components reasonably constituting a “second computing system”)
Regarding claim 16: Parent claim 15 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka further discloses wherein the second computing system is remotely located relative to the first computing system, and the first and second computing systems are operatively coupled via a computer network. (Paragraph [0059, 0067, 0231-0233] and Figure [2], Oka discloses an interconnected system of separate components that are operatively connected. Further, as “remote” is broadly interpreted, any separation falls under this terminology (including not being housed in the same black box))
Regarding claim 33: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka further discloses wherein the one or more packages are selected from the group consisting of: a bag, a "poly bag", a "poly", a fiber-based bag, a fiber-based envelope, a bubble-wrap bag, a bubble-wrap envelope, a "jiffy" bag, a "jiffy" envelope, and a substantially rigid cuboid structure. (Paragraph [0172], Oka discloses a cuboid structure)
Regarding claim 35: Parent claim 33 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Regarding wherein the one or more packages comprise a fiber-based bag comprising a paper composite or polymer composite., the examiner notes that Oka does not particularly limit the type of object to be picked/sorted. Merely specifying the type of object to be one of a plurality of well-known, routine, and conventional objects to be picked in the art does not provide patentable distinction from the disclosure of the prior art of note. Therefore, the examiner notes that merely specifying the type of object to be picked is an obvious variant that would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing and would be chosen based on intended use of the pick/place system.
Regarding claim 36: Parent claim 33 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Regarding wherein the one or more packages comprise a fiber-based bag comprising a paper composite or polymer composite., the examiner notes that Oka does not particularly limit the type of object to be picked/sorted. Merely specifying the type of object to be one of a plurality of well-known, routine, and conventional objects to be picked in the art does not provide patentable distinction from the disclosure of the prior art of note. Therefore, the examiner notes that merely specifying the type of object to be picked is an obvious variant that would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing and would be chosen based on intended use of the pick/place system.
However, as an example, Oka discloses wherein the one or more packages comprise a fiber-based bag comprising a paper composite or polymer composite. (Paragraph [0172], Oka discloses a cuboid structure)
Regarding claim 37: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka further discloses wherein the end effector comprises a second suction cup assembly coupled to the controllably activated vacuum load. (Paragraph [0046] and Figure [1], Oka discloses that the number of suction cups/pads is not limited and shows an example in Figure [1] where two are used)
Regarding claim 39: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka further discloses further comprising a third imaging device operatively coupled to the first computing system and positioned and oriented to capture one or more images of the targeted package after the grasp has been conducted using the end effector. (Paragraph [0051-0052, 0054-0055], Oka discloses a plurality of cameras. As an example, the release camera (32-3) is a third camera that captures an image of the object after the grasp)
Regarding claim 41: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka further discloses wherein the first computing system and second imaging device are configured to capture and utilize the one or more images after the grasp has been conducted using the end effector to estimate whether a plurality of packages, or zero packages, have been yielded with the conducted grasp. (Paragraph [0088-0089] and Figure [3], Oka discloses determining if a failure in grasping occurred (zero packages))
Regarding claim 42: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka further discloses wherein the first computing system is configured to abort a grasp upon determination that a plurality of packages, or zero packages, have been yielded with the conducted grasp. (Paragraph [0088-0089] and Figure [3], Oka discloses determining if a failure in grasping occurred (zero packages), stop the grasp, and prepare for a retry)
Regarding claim 47: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka further discloses wherein the first computing system is configured to operate the robotic arm and end effector to place with targeted package upon the place structure such that the targeted package is swept across a surface of the place structure to remain substantially flat relative to the surface. (Paragraph [0055] and Figure [12-13, 16A-16D], Oka discloses placing the objects flat into the bin 14b (see figures of note) as the bin is transported on a conveyance system, such as a belt)
Claims 3-4 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in further view of Bradski et al. (US 2018/0243904 A1; hereinafter Bradski).
Regarding claim 3: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka does not explicitly disclose that the robotic arm is attached to the placement structure.
However, Bradski, in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems, teaches further comprising a frame structure configured to fixedly couple the robotic arm to the place structure. (Paragraph [0039, 0042] and Figure [1A, 2A-2C], Bradski teaches a conveyance system physically coupled to the robotic arm)
Oka and Bradski are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include a physical coupling between components as taught by Bradski, as this is an obvious matter of design choice. Merely linking the robot with the pick or place mechanisms does not produce a novel and non-obvious distinction over the primary reference and the examiner submits that linking the arm with a pick and/or place mechanism was also known in the art as evidenced by Bradski.
Regarding claim 4: Parent claim 3 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Bradski. Oka further discloses wherein the pick structure is removably coupled to the frame structure. (Paragraph [0053] and Figure [1], Oka discloses containers that are removably coupled to the picking structure frame)
Regarding claim 45: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Bradski. Oka does not particularly limit the type of place structure but does not explicitly disclose a ramp.
Bradski, in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems, teaches wherein the first computing system is configured to operate the robotic arm and end effector to place with targeted package upon the place structure such that the targeted package is dragged into a ramp comprising the place structure. (The examiner notes that “drag” is interpreted to merely mean displace and not necessarily “drag along a surface”. Paragraph [0113], Bradski teaches placement down a chute (ramp))
Oka and Bradski are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include a chute as an alternative conveyance method as taught by Bradski. Oka discloses that conveyor belts may be used as the placement system, but is not particularly limited thereto (Oka, Paragraph [0055]). Bradski merely discloses another known form of conveyance for objects placed by a pick and place robot and serves as simple substitution of one known form of article conveyance with another. A benefit of a chute lies in fewer maintenance items compared to a conveyor belt. This constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in further view of Chavez et al. (US 2020/0269429 A1; hereinafter Chavez).
Regarding claim 7: Parent claim 5 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka does not explicitly describe that the conveyance system supporting placement bin 14b changes the posture of the bin. However, this is an obvious modification of the disclosure of Oka.
Chavez, in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems, teaches wherein the placement tray is operatively coupled to one or more actuators configured to controllably change an orientation of at least a portion of the placement tray, the one or more actuators being operatively coupled to the first computing system. (Paragraph [0039] and Figure [1], Chavez discloses a placement structure that is a tray located on a moveable robotic cart (the cart moves))
Oka and Chavez are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include a movable element to change the orientation of the placement tray, as this is implicitly taught. Oka discloses a placement conveyor (Oka, Paragraph [0053, 0055]) but does not explicitly disclose its function, nor does Oka particularly limit this structure. Chavez is relied upon as a reference that discloses a robot base containing the placement bin, which is capable of changing the bin orientation by a movement. Merely changing the placement structure of Oka with another known type of placement structure (as seen in Chavez) is an obvious matter of design choice.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in further view of Seo et al. (US 2017/0039671 A1; hereinafter Seo).
Regarding claim 13: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka does not explicitly disclose a VLSI computing system.
However, Seo, in a similar field of endeavor of robotic systems, teaches wherein the first computing system comprises a single VLSI computer. (Paragraph [0049], Seo teaches use of VLSI circuits)
Oka and Seo are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include a VLSI computer as taught by Seo, as this is a matter of obvious design choice. Oka discloses a control system but does not particularly limit the computing structure; merely utilizing a particular known computing type does not provide patentable distinction over Oka and is a matter of mere obvious design choice.
Claims 17-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in further view of Duan et al. (US 2021/0069904 A1; filed 08 September 2020, claiming provisional benefit from 07 September 2019, hereinafter Duan).
Regarding claim 17: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka does not explicitly disclose analyzing a plurality of candidate grasps.
Duan, in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems, teaches wherein the first computing system is configured such that conducting the grasp comprises analyzing a plurality of candidate grasps to select an execution grasp to be executed to remove the targeted package from the pick structure. (Paragraph [0045], Duan teaches analyzing a plurality (set) of proposed grasps (candidate grasps))
Oka and Duan are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to generate a plurality of candidate grasps and select one from the list as taught by Duan, as this assists with generating a grasp with the highest likelihood of success (Duan, Paragraph [0045], providing motivation).
Regarding claim 18: Parent claim 17 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Duan. Oka does not explicitly disclose analyzing a plurality of candidate grasps.
Duan, in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems, teaches wherein analyzing a plurality of candidate grasps comprises examining locations on the targeted package where the first suction cup assembly is predicted to be able to form a sealing engagement with a surface of the targeted package. (Paragraph [0030, 0045], Duan teaches comparing a set of grasps regarding position/points on one item to select a grasp with the highest chance of success, wherein suction/vacuum is used (sealing engagement))
Oka and Duan are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to generate a plurality of candidate grasps and select one from the list as taught by Duan, as this assists with generating a grasp with the highest likelihood of success (Duan, Paragraph [0045], providing motivation).
Regarding claim 19: Parent claim 18 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Duan. Oka does not explicitly disclose analyzing a plurality of candidate grasps.
Duan, in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems, teaches wherein analyzing a plurality of candidate grasps comprises examining locations on the targeted package where the first suction cup assembly is predicted to be able to form a sealing engagement with a surface of the targeted package from a plurality of different end effector approach orientations. (Paragraph [0030, 0045], Duan teaches comparing a set of grasps regarding position/points on one item to select a grasp with the highest chance of success, wherein suction/vacuum is used (sealing engagement) and the ranking includes grasps and orientations within the range of the 6DOF arm (different orientations))
Oka and Duan are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to generate a plurality of candidate grasps and select one from the list as taught by Duan, as this assists with generating a grasp with the highest likelihood of success (Duan, Paragraph [0045], providing motivation).
Regarding claim 20: Parent claim 18 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Duan. Oka does not explicitly disclose analyzing a plurality of candidate grasps.
Duan, in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems, teaches wherein analyzing a plurality of candidate grasps comprises examining locations on the targeted package where the first suction cup assembly is predicted to be able to form a sealing engagement with a surface of the targeted package from a plurality of different end effector approach positions. (Paragraph [0030, 0045], Duan teaches comparing a set of grasps regarding position/points on one item to select a grasp with the highest chance of success, wherein suction/vacuum is used (sealing engagement) and the ranking includes grasps and orientations within the range of the 6DOF arm (the points on the object include positions of the end effector, as these would be engagement points))
Oka and Duan are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to generate a plurality of candidate grasps and select one from the list as taught by Duan, as this assists with generating a grasp with the highest likelihood of success (Duan, Paragraph [0045], providing motivation).
Regarding claim 22: Parent claim 18 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Duan. Oka does not explicitly disclose analyzing a plurality of candidate grasps.
Duan, in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems, teaches wherein examining locations on the targeted package where the first suction cup assembly is predicted to be able to form a sealing engagement with a surface of the targeted package is conducted in a purely geometric fashion. (Paragraph [0030, 0045], Duan teaches comparing a set of grasps regarding position/points on one item to select a grasp with the highest chance of success, wherein suction/vacuum is used (sealing engagement). The examiner notes that the terminology “in a purely geometric fashion” is interpreted broadly in this case, and by examining points and orientations, this is in a “geometric fashion”)
Oka and Duan are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to generate a plurality of candidate grasps and select one from the list as taught by Duan, as this assists with generating a grasp with the highest likelihood of success (Duan, Paragraph [0045], providing motivation).
Regarding claim 23: Parent claim 17 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Duan. Oka does not explicitly disclose analyzing a plurality of candidate grasps.
Duan, in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems, teaches wherein the first computing system is configured to select the execution grasp based upon a candidate grasps factor selected from the group consisting of: estimated time required; estimated computation required; and estimated success of grasp. (Paragraph [0045], Duan teaches ranging plans by chance of success)
Oka and Duan are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to generate a plurality of candidate grasps and select one from the list as taught by Duan, as this assists with generating a grasp with the highest likelihood of success (Duan, Paragraph [0045], providing motivation).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Duan in further view of Quast et al. (US 2019/0240847 A1; hereinafter Quast).
Regarding claim 21: Parent claim 18 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Duan. Oka does not explicitly disclose details regarding the vacuum gripper.
Quast, in a similar field of robotic pick and place systems, teaches wherein the first suction cup assembly comprises a first outer sealing lip, and wherein a sealing engagement with a surface comprises a substantially complete engagement of the first outer sealing lip with the surface. (Paragraph [0061-0063] and Figure [3-5], Quast discloses bellows suction body that engages the target object)
Oka and Quast are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include further details regarding the structure of the disclosed suction gripper as taught by Quast, as this merely provides further detail regarding the implicit teachings of Oka. Oka discloses the use of a suction gripper (Paragraph [0046]) but does not particularly limit its size, shape, or number. The description of the structure of the end effector constitutes mere additional elements that are known in the art, as evidenced by Quast. Put simply, Oka pertains to a robot control disclosure and provides generic structure of certain elements (such as the suction gripper); merely further clarifying structural details of the gripper with known structure from the art is considered an obvious variant of Oka. One would have been motivated to understand how suction grippers in the art operated in order to reproduce the invention of Oka and ended up with the teachings of Quast to understand; this constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results.
Claims 24-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Quast.
Regarding claim 24: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka does not explicitly disclose details regarding the vacuum gripper.
Quast, in a similar field of robotic pick and place systems, teaches wherein the first suction cup assembly comprises a bellows structure. (Paragraph [0061-0063] and Figure [3-5], Quast teaches a suction assembly with bellows)
Oka and Quast are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include further details regarding the structure of the disclosed suction gripper as taught by Quast, as this merely provides further detail regarding the implicit teachings of Oka. Oka discloses the use of a suction gripper (Paragraph [0046]) but does not particularly limit its size, shape, or number. The description of the structure of the end effector constitutes mere additional elements that are known in the art, as evidenced by Quast. Put simply, Oka pertains to a robot control disclosure and provides generic structure of certain elements (such as the suction gripper); merely further clarifying structural details of the gripper with known structure from the art is considered an obvious variant of Oka. One would have been motivated to understand how suction grippers in the art operated in order to reproduce the invention of Oka and ended up with the teachings of Quast to understand; this constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results.
Regarding claim 25: Parent claim 24 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Quast. Oka does not explicitly disclose details regarding the vacuum gripper.
Quast, in a similar field of robotic pick and place systems, teaches wherein the bellows structure comprises a plurality of wall portions adjacently coupled with bending margins. (Paragraph [0061-0063] and Figure [3-5], Quast teaches that the bellows contains a plurality of corrugated walls that deform)
Oka and Quast are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include further details regarding the structure of the disclosed suction gripper as taught by Quast, as this merely provides further detail regarding the implicit teachings of Oka. Oka discloses the use of a suction gripper (Paragraph [0046]) but does not particularly limit its size, shape, or number. The description of the structure of the end effector constitutes mere additional elements that are known in the art, as evidenced by Quast. Put simply, Oka pertains to a robot control disclosure and provides generic structure of certain elements (such as the suction gripper); merely further clarifying structural details of the gripper with known structure from the art is considered an obvious variant of Oka. One would have been motivated to understand how suction grippers in the art operated in order to reproduce the invention of Oka and ended up with the teachings of Quast to understand; this constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results.
Regarding claim 26: Parent claim 25 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Quast. Oka does not explicitly disclose details regarding the vacuum gripper.
Quast, in a similar field of robotic pick and place systems, teaches wherein the bellows structure comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: polyethylene, polypropylene, rubber, and thermoplastic elastomer. (Paragraph [0061], Quast teaches bellows made of pliable plastic)
Oka and Quast are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include further details regarding the structure of the disclosed suction gripper as taught by Quast, as this merely provides further detail regarding the implicit teachings of Oka. Oka discloses the use of a suction gripper (Paragraph [0046]) but does not particularly limit its size, shape, or number. The description of the structure of the end effector constitutes mere additional elements that are known in the art, as evidenced by Quast. Put simply, Oka pertains to a robot control disclosure and provides generic structure of certain elements (such as the suction gripper); merely further clarifying structural details of the gripper with known structure from the art is considered an obvious variant of Oka. One would have been motivated to understand how suction grippers in the art operated in order to reproduce the invention of Oka and ended up with the teachings of Quast to understand; this constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results. Further, mere use of a particular material of a list of well-known materials constitutes an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 27: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka does not explicitly disclose details regarding the vacuum gripper.
Quast, in a similar field of robotic pick and place systems, teaches wherein the first suction cup assembly comprises an outer housing and an internal structure coupled thereto. (Paragraph [0061-0063] and Figure [3-5], Quast teaches a suction gripper with bellows and internal structures)
Oka and Quast are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include further details regarding the structure of the disclosed suction gripper as taught by Quast, as this merely provides further detail regarding the implicit teachings of Oka. Oka discloses the use of a suction gripper (Paragraph [0046]) but does not particularly limit its size, shape, or number. The description of the structure of the end effector constitutes mere additional elements that are known in the art, as evidenced by Quast. Put simply, Oka pertains to a robot control disclosure and provides generic structure of certain elements (such as the suction gripper); merely further clarifying structural details of the gripper with known structure from the art is considered an obvious variant of Oka. One would have been motivated to understand how suction grippers in the art operated in order to reproduce the invention of Oka and ended up with the teachings of Quast to understand; this constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results. Further, mere use of a particular material of a list of well-known materials constitutes an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 28: Parent claim 27 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Quast. Oka does not explicitly disclose details regarding the vacuum gripper.
Quast, in a similar field of robotic pick and place systems, teaches wherein the internal structure of the first suction cup assembly comprises a wall member coupled to a proximal base member, the wall member and proximal base member defining an inner chamber. (Paragraph [0046-0048, 0061-0063] and Figure [3-5], Quast teaches a suction gripper with bellows and internal structures, the assembly comprising a wall member (10) attached to the base of the end effector)
Oka and Quast are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include further details regarding the structure of the disclosed suction gripper as taught by Quast, as this merely provides further detail regarding the implicit teachings of Oka. Oka discloses the use of a suction gripper (Paragraph [0046]) but does not particularly limit its size, shape, or number. The description of the structure of the end effector constitutes mere additional elements that are known in the art, as evidenced by Quast. Put simply, Oka pertains to a robot control disclosure and provides generic structure of certain elements (such as the suction gripper); merely further clarifying structural details of the gripper with known structure from the art is considered an obvious variant of Oka. One would have been motivated to understand how suction grippers in the art operated in order to reproduce the invention of Oka and ended up with the teachings of Quast to understand; this constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results. Further, mere use of a particular material of a list of well-known materials constitutes an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 29: Parent claim 28 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Quast. Oka does not explicitly disclose details regarding the vacuum gripper.
Quast, in a similar field of robotic pick and place systems, teaches wherein the wall member comprises a substantially cylindrical shape having proximal and distal ends, and wherein the proximal base member forms a substantially circular interface with the proximal end of the wall member. (Paragraph [0046-0048, 0061-0063] and Figure [3-5], Quast teaches a suction gripper with bellows and internal structures, the assembly comprising a wall member (44) connected to the base/proximal base member, with an inner chamber that is a hole/circular shape)
Oka and Quast are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include further details regarding the structure of the disclosed suction gripper as taught by Quast, as this merely provides further detail regarding the implicit teachings of Oka. Oka discloses the use of a suction gripper (Paragraph [0046]) but does not particularly limit its size, shape, or number. The description of the structure of the end effector constitutes mere additional elements that are known in the art, as evidenced by Quast. Put simply, Oka pertains to a robot control disclosure and provides generic structure of certain elements (such as the suction gripper); merely further clarifying structural details of the gripper with known structure from the art is considered an obvious variant of Oka. One would have been motivated to understand how suction grippers in the art operated in order to reproduce the invention of Oka and ended up with the teachings of Quast to understand; this constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results. Further, mere use of a particular material of a list of well-known materials constitutes an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 30: Parent claim 28 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Quast. Oka does not explicitly disclose details regarding the vacuum gripper.
Quast, in a similar field of robotic pick and place systems, teaches wherein the proximal base member defines one or more inlet apertures therethrough, the one or more inlet apertures being configured to allow air flow therethrough in accordance with activation of the controllably activated vacuum load. (Paragraph [0058] and Figure [3-5], Quast teaches a pressure line for applying compressed air to the outflow unit)
Oka and Quast are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include further details regarding the structure of the disclosed suction gripper as taught by Quast, as this merely provides further detail regarding the implicit teachings of Oka. Oka discloses the use of a suction gripper (Paragraph [0046]) but does not particularly limit its size, shape, or number. The description of the structure of the end effector constitutes mere additional elements that are known in the art, as evidenced by Quast. Put simply, Oka pertains to a robot control disclosure and provides generic structure of certain elements (such as the suction gripper); merely further clarifying structural details of the gripper with known structure from the art is considered an obvious variant of Oka. One would have been motivated to understand how suction grippers in the art operated in order to reproduce the invention of Oka and ended up with the teachings of Quast to understand; this constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results.
Regarding claim 31: Parent claim 30 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Quast. Oka does not explicitly disclose details regarding the vacuum gripper.
Quast, in a similar field of robotic pick and place systems, teaches wherein the internal structure further comprises a distal wall member comprising a structural aperture ring portion configured to define access to the inner chamber, as well as one or more transitional air channels configured to allow air flow therethrough in accordance with activation of the controllably activated vacuum load. (Paragraph [0058, 0063] and Figure [1, 3-5], Quast teaches a support ring that supports access to the interior of the suction cup with channels for flow)
Oka and Quast are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include further details regarding the structure of the disclosed suction gripper as taught by Quast, as this merely provides further detail regarding the implicit teachings of Oka. Oka discloses the use of a suction gripper (Paragraph [0046]) but does not particularly limit its size, shape, or number. The description of the structure of the end effector constitutes mere additional elements that are known in the art, as evidenced by Quast. Put simply, Oka pertains to a robot control disclosure and provides generic structure of certain elements (such as the suction gripper); merely further clarifying structural details of the gripper with known structure from the art is considered an obvious variant of Oka. One would have been motivated to understand how suction grippers in the art operated in order to reproduce the invention of Oka and ended up with the teachings of Quast to understand; this constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results.
Regarding claim 32: Parent claim 31 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Quast. Oka does not explicitly disclose details regarding the vacuum gripper.
Quast, in a similar field of robotic pick and place systems, teaches wherein the one or more inlet apertures and the one or more transitional air channels function to allow a prescribed flow of air through the inner chamber to facilitate releasable coupling of the first suction cup assembly with the targeted package. (Paragraph [0058, 0061, 0063] and Figure [1, 3-5], Quast teaches a support ring that supports access to the interior of the suction cup with channels for flow)
Oka and Quast are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include further details regarding the structure of the disclosed suction gripper as taught by Quast, as this merely provides further detail regarding the implicit teachings of Oka. Oka discloses the use of a suction gripper (Paragraph [0046]) but does not particularly limit its size, shape, or number. The description of the structure of the end effector constitutes mere additional elements that are known in the art, as evidenced by Quast. Put simply, Oka pertains to a robot control disclosure and provides generic structure of certain elements (such as the suction gripper); merely further clarifying structural details of the gripper with known structure from the art is considered an obvious variant of Oka. One would have been motivated to understand how suction grippers in the art operated in order to reproduce the invention of Oka and ended up with the teachings of Quast to understand; this constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results.
Regarding claim 34: Parent claim 32 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Quast. Regarding wherein the one or more packages comprise a fiber-based bag comprising a paper composite or polymer composite., the examiner notes that Oka does not particularly limit the type of object to be picked/sorted. Merely specifying the type of object to be one of a plurality of well-known, routine, and conventional objects to be picked in the art does not provide patentable distinction from the disclosure of the prior art of note. Therefore, the examiner notes that merely specifying the type of object to be picked is an obvious variant that would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing and would be chosen based on intended use of the pick/place system.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in view of Duan in further view of Yap et al. (US 2020/0017315 A1; hereinafter Yap).
Regarding claim 38: Parent claim 37 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka does not explicitly disclose pulling and partially encapsulating a package within the suction cup.
Yap, in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems, teaches wherein the second suction cup assembly defines a second inner chamber configured to pull into and at least partially encapsulate a portion of the targeted package when the vacuum load is controllably activated adjacent the targeted package. (Paragraph [0392-0393] and Figure [22A-22B], Yap teaches that the suction assembly comprises a primary chamber (second inner chamber) that at least partially draws the object/bag up into it via applied vacuum flow)
Oka and Yap are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include how soft goods are held by the vacuum gripper as discussed by Yap, as the type of picked object is not particularly limited. By nature, soft goods deform, and when applied with negative pressure (suction), would be at least partially drawn into the source of the vacuum. Thus, if the vacuum/suction assembly of Oka were to be used on a soft good, then the result would be what is shown in Yap. Thus, Yap merely clarifies what may occur when retrieving a soft good with the system of Oka. This constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in further view of Taamazyan et al. (US 2022/0405506 A1; hereinafter Taamazyan).
Regarding claim 40: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka does not explicitly disclose determining deformable body characteristics of the objects to be picked.
Taamazyan, in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems, teaches wherein the second imaging device and first computing system are further configured to estimate whether the targeted package is deformable by capturing a sequence of images of the targeted package during motion of the at targeted package and analyzing deformation of the targeted package within the sequence of images. (Paragraph [0088, 0092-0093, 0095, 0097], Taamazyan teaches observing optical flow (successive images) to detect object movement/deformation)
Oka and Taamazyan are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include further deformable body analysis as taught by Taamazyan in the interest of increasing the accuracy of pose estimation of the robotic system (Taamazyan, Paragraph [0202]).
Claims 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in further view of Ferguson et al. (US 2017/0120454 A1; hereinafter Ferguson).
Regarding claim 43: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka does not explicitly disclose changeable end effectors.
Ferguson, in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems, teaches wherein the end effector comprises a tool switching head portion configured to controllably couple to and uncouple from the first suction cup assembly using a tool holder mounted within geometric proximity of the distal portion of the robotic arm. (Paragraph [0023] and Figure [1A-1C, 2A], Ferguson teaches a system for quick-change end effectors to change between a plurality of end effectors on a holder in proximity with the arm)
Oka and Taamazyan are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include quick-change end effectors as taught by Taamazyan in the interest of providing broader tool sets without the need for human involvement (Taamazyan, Paragraph [0004], rationale to combine). This constitutes the combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results. Merely applying a known end effector changeout (Taamazyan) to a known robotic system (Oka) is considered an obvious combination of the two references.
Regarding claim 44: Parent claim 43 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka does not explicitly disclose changeable end effectors.
Ferguson, in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems, teaches wherein the tool holder is configured to hold and be removably coupled to one or more additional suction cup assemblies or one or more other package interfacing tools, such that the first computing device may be configured to conduct tool switching using the tool switching head portion. (Paragraph [0023, 0031] and Figure [1A-1C, 2A], Ferguson teaches a system for quick-change end effectors to change between a plurality of end effectors (including suction/vacuum devices) on a holder in proximity with the arm)
Oka and Taamazyan are in a similar field of endeavor of robot pick and place systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include quick-change end effectors as taught by Taamazyan in the interest of providing broader tool sets without the need for human involvement (Taamazyan, Paragraph [0004], rationale to combine). This constitutes the combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results. Merely applying a known end effector changeout (Taamazyan) to a known robotic system (Oka) is considered an obvious combination of the two references.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja in further view of Shome et al. (NPL – “Towards Robust Product Packing with a Minimalistic End-Effector”, published 1 May 2019, hereinafter Shome).
Regarding claim 46: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Oka in view of Terhuja. Oka does not explicitly disclose placing an object on an edge to topple the object.
Shome, in a similar field of endeavor of robot systems, teaches wherein the first computing system is configured to operate the robotic arm and end effector to place with targeted package upon the place structure such that the targeted package is placed upon an edge of the targeted package intentionally such that it will topple onto a surface of the place structure in a preferred orientation and position. (Section [II, V.B], Shome teaches toppling of objects by the robot arm)
Oka and Shome are in a similar field of endeavor of robot systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Oka to include the ability for the robot to topple objects as taught by Shome in the interest of exposing desirable locations to pick the object (Shome, Section [V.B]). This constitute a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results.
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 12,430,792 B1
ITEM PICK POSE RECOVERY
Garaas
Filed: 16 Nov 2021
Pub: 30 Sep 2025
Discusses a robot pick and place system that establishes a bounding box around an object to be picked for the purpose of pose (position and orientation) estimation.
2
US 2018/0312336 A1
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR
PROCESSING OBJECTS INCLUDING A
ZONE GANTRY SYSTEM
Wagner et al.
Filed: 19 Mar 2018
Pub: 01 Nov 2018
Discusses a robot transfer system that determines which pose to orient a robot end effector on an object to be picked in a particular location to maximize a chance of successful pick.
3
US 2019/0248003 A1
GRASPING OF AN OBJECT BY A ROBOT
BASED ON GRASP STRATEGY
DETERMINED USING MACHINE
LEARNING MODEL ( S )
Nagarajan et al.
Filed: 04 Jan 2018
Pub: 15 Aug 2019
Discusses establishing candidate grasp strategies and selecting a grasp strategy.
4
US 2020/0311956 A1
AUTOMATED MANIPULATION OF
TRANSPARENT VESSELS
Choi et al.
Filed: 25 Mar 2019
Pub: 01 Oct 2020
Discusses item manipulation by a pick/place robot using bounding boxes to localize the object.
5
US 2020/0353629 A1
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR
MANIPULATING ARTICLES
Simons et al.
Filed: 07 May 2020
Pub: 12 Nov 2020
Discusses a pick and place robot with a suction based gripper.
6
US 2023/0150777 A1
PICK AND PLACE ROBOT SYSTEM,
METHOD, USE AND SORTER SYSTEM
Skyum et al.
Filed: 26 Mar 2021
Priority: 03 Apr 2020
Pub: 18 May 2023
Discusses a robot pick and place system that utilizes computer/machine vision to identify pieces to be picked.
7
US 2023/0286140 A1
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ROBOTIC
SYSTEM WITH OBJECT HANDLING
Usui
Filed: 02 Mar 2023
Priority: 08 Mar 2022
Pub: 14 Sep 2023
Discusses a pick and place robot with computer/machine vision that establishes a bounding box around the object and the end effector (after the grasp) to track the pose of the gripper with the object (pose is the combination of position and orientation).
8
US 2020/0130935 A1
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LEARNING
TO EXTRAPOLATE OPTIMAL OBJECT
ROUTING AND HANDLING PARAMETERS
Wagner et al.
Filed: 25 Oct 2019
Pub: 30 Apr 2020
Discusses a robot pick and place system that obtains object information using imaging devices and establishes a 3D model of objects to be picked.
9
US 2025/0028300 A1
CONTROL OF AN INDUSTRIAL ROBOT FOR
A GRIPPING TASK
Balzer
Filed: 02 Nov 2022
Priority: 04 Nov 2021
Pub: 23 Jan 2025
Discusses establishing a bounding box/envelope around objects detected by the machine vision system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658