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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits in response to communications filed by Applicant on January 29, 2025. Claims 29-48 are currently pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 29, 37, 44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12151889. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognized that the claims of the instant application are obvious variable of the patent claims since patent claims are broader and would encompass the claims of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 29-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wagner et al. US2020/0130935 (“Wagner”).
Regarding claim(s) 29, 37, 44. Wagner discloses an automated packing system for placing a plurality of objects into a shipping container ([0003] Automated storage and retrieval systems (AS/RS), for example, generally include computer controlled systems for automatically storing (placing) and retrieving items from defined storage locations. Traditional AS/RS typically employ totes (or bins)), said automated packing system comprising:
a programmable motion device that includes an end effector coupled to an articulated arm ([0046] Every pick is a new data point. There are many variables throughout the picking process that can be altered to provide new data points. For example, the system can change the speed of robot arm motions, the location on an object where it is picked, the gripper type used, the gripping force applied, etc. The principal outcome examined is whether the object was successfully moved from its source location to a desired destination.);
a supply bin conveyor that delivers a supply bin to a first location proximate the articulated arm, the supply bin containing at least one object of the plurality of objects ([0060] In accordance with various embodiments, the invention provides processes for an automated material handling system that routes bins to picking stations, and which provides the following. The system may predict object-specific parameters for new objects based on previously seen objects.);
a shipping container conveyor that delivers a shipping container to a second location proximate the articulated arm, the shipping container being a destination for the at least one object ([0043] The objects may be packages, boxes, flats or polybags etc. in a shipping center, or consumer products in an e-commerce order fulfillment center, or products and warehouse packs in a retail distribution center (DC). The bins might be bins from an automatic storage and retrieval system (AS/RS), vendor cases, store replenishment boxes, or any other containing mechanism designed to hold items separate from one another. The conveyance of bins could take many forms, including belt or roller conveyors, chutes, mobile robots, or human workers.);
a container alignment system that includes a movable brace bar and a brace rail, wherein the movable brace bar urges the shipping container into a known position against the brace rail at the second location proximate the articulated arm ([0090] FIG. 21, for example, shows a processing system 400 that includes a programmable motion system 402. The programmable motion system 402 includes an articulated arm 404 and an end effector 406. The system 400 may retrieve objects from bins 410 that are provided on conveyors 412, and place the retrieved objects into a reciprocating carriage 414 that travels along a rail 416 between rows of boxes 420, and as further shown in FIG. 22 is adapted to drop an object into one of the output boxes 420. Completed boxes may be urged onto output conveyors 422, which direct the completed boxes to a collected output conveyor 424.); and
a grasp detection system for identifying characteristics of the object after it is grasped by the end effector ([0015] FIG. 5 shows an illustrative diagrammatic underside view of the detection system and capture system of the processing station of FIG. 4;);
wherein the end effector places the selected object into the shipping container in a selected orientation using the characteristics of the object while the shipping container is maintained in the known position between the movable brace bar and the brace rail ([0099-0100, 0113], [0099] The object classification system 510 uses the first and second sets of information to assign a specific class to the item. The first set of information includes information that is sent along with the object. This first set of information can include the identifying indicia used by the identification system 510, as well as a text description of the object, the product category of the object, manufacturer information, information regarding the dimensions, shape, mass, volume, materials used, packaging or item information including colors, patters, images or other source indications, structural information such as deformability, fragility, required orientations (“This Side Up”), etc. A second set of information about the object can be determined by the system, for example using sensors to measure features such as mass, volume, dimensions, shape, stiffness, color, images, etc. It can also associate process variables to the object, such as effectors that can be used with the object, motion or inertial characteristics of the object that would affect processing, acceptable drop heights or orientations when releasing the object, or other time, temperature, or handling details.).
Regarding claim(s) 30, 38, 45. Wagner discloses wherein the characteristics include an amount of swinging motion the object exhibits as it is grasped by the end effector ([0046] Every pick is a new data point. There are many variables throughout the picking process that can be altered to provide new data points. For example, the system can change the speed of robot arm motions, the location on an object where it is picked, the gripper type used, the gripping force applied, etc. The principal outcome examined is whether the object was successfully moved from its source location to a desired destination. [0055] The use of such sensing may permit the system to determine ground truths (GT) with respect to a specific object, stock keeping unit (SKU), or other set of known information. For example, if an object with a known SKU is grasped, and the system then detects that any of change in vacuum during grasp at the end effector, the change in any of weight, linear acceleration, angular acceleration, or rotation is recorded that is associated with a multi-pick, the system will know (GT) that the acquired object is a multi-pick and needs to be processed not as the identified SKU or other known information may dictate, but rather as a multi-pick that needs to be either re-processed or processed by human personnel. The sooner the system knows that a pick violated GT, the sooner the system may re-process or post-process the multi-pick. If).
Regarding claim(s) 31, 39, 46. Wagner discloses the end effector includes a compliant vacuum cup ([0055] In accordance with certain embodiments, systems of the invention provide certain information that is determined to be absolutely correct, or ground truth (GT) information, regarding a variety of parameters through such feedback learning. For example, weight sensors may be used to determine or confirm a multi-object pick occurrence as follows. The weight sensors may be used to determine that more than one object has been grasped, for example, if an item is identified yet the experienced weight is much greater than that of the identified object. If such a grasp is maintained (even for a short period) the system will note any or all of: the air flow at the end effector, the change in air flow at the end effector, the vacuum level during grasp at the end effector, the change in vacuum during grasp at the end effector,). and the amount of swinging motion is thresholded from movement of the compliant vacuum cup ([0055-0056], [0056] In accordance with further embodiments, systems of the invention provide certain information that is determined to be absolutely correct, or ground truth (GT) information, regarding a variety of parameters through such feedback learning. For example, weight sensors may be used to determine or confirm a multi-object pick occurrence as follows. The weight sensors may be used to determine that more than one object has been grasped, for example, if an item is identified yet the experienced weight is much greater than that of the identified object. If such a grasp is maintained (even for a short period) the system will note any or all of: the air flow at the end effector, the change in air flow at the end effector, the vacuum level during grasp at the end effector, the change in vacuum during grasp at the end effector, the change in any of weight, linear acceleration, angular acceleration, or rotation.).
Regarding claim(s) 32, 40. Wagner discloses wherein the characteristics include a pose and orientation relative to the end effector ([0100] The class information assigned by the classification system 510, in turn, defines processing parameters including the type and manner of processing that occurs at an object processing station 402. The type and manner of processing can include specific grasp-planning methods that can target, for example, placement on the object associated with the object's center of mass, or information related to flat areas on the object that can be grasped by a vacuum cup, or an indication that an explorative trial and error grasp methodology is required to find an appropriate grasp location. The processing parameters can also indicate various motion planning methodologies that balance the speed of the effector moving the object with the ability to maintain the object in the effector's grasp. The processing parameters may also include information related to releasing the object from the effector, including release height, release orientation, release location, etc.).
Regarding claim(s) 33, 41. Wagner discloses wherein the characteristics include a volumetric assessment of the object ([0016] FIGS. 6A-6D show illustrative diagrammatic plan views of a bin undergoing volumetric and/or density analyses of homogenous objects, prior to analyses (FIG. 6A), prior to picking an object (FIG. 6B), following the pick of an object (FIG. 6C), and isolating the volume of the picked object from the bin volume (FIG. 6D);).
Regarding claim(s) 34, 42. Wagner discloses wherein the shipping container is a cardboard box ([0043] The objects may be packages, boxes, flats or polybags etc. in a shipping center, or consumer products in an e-commerce order fulfillment center, or products and warehouse packs in a retail distribution center (DC). The bins might be bins from an automatic storage and retrieval system (AS/RS), vendor cases, store replenishment boxes, or any other containing mechanism designed to hold items separate from one another.).
Regarding claim(s) 35, 43, 47, 48. Wagner discloses wherein the shipping container is a shipping tray ([0042] In accordance with an embodiment, the invention provides an automated material handling system that is tasked, in part, with routing objects carried in bins to stations where objects are transferred from one bin to another with one or more programmable motion devices (such as articulated arms) at automated stations, and may further include manual stations. The bins may be containers, totes, or boxes etc. An overall objective of the system may be to sort and ship goods, to perform order fulfillment, to replenish store stock, or to provide any general-purpose system requiring the transfer of individual objects from one bin to another.).
Regarding claim(s) 36. Wagner discloses wherein the plurality of objects are homogenous ([0009] In accordance with yet a further embodiment the invention provides a method of processing objects. The method includes the steps of: providing, at a supply location, one or more objects to be processed, capturing identification data for the object, querying a first data repository having a first set of object information, determining that the identification data for the object is not included within the first set of object information, identifying object feature data regarding the object, querying a second data repository having a second set of object information, said second set of object information including feature information regarding a plurality of objects).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUC M DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5962. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramón Mercado, Ph.D. can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRUC M DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658