Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amended claims filed on 07/22/26. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 13-15, and 19 are canceled. Claims 1-12 and 16-18 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the rejections of
claims 1-11, and 15-18 are directed towards the claims as amended, and therefore considered moot. A new ground of rejection is made in view of Wen et al (US Patent 11,383,874 B2 hereinafter “Wen”) in view of Wagner et al (US Patent application publication 20230347515 A1 hereinafter “Wagner”) is necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 15-18 do not contain a reference to a claim previously set forth. As claim 14 is canceled, it cannot be considered a claim previously set forth. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
In the interest of compact prosecution, claims 15-18 will be examined in light of the art as if they depend upon claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al (US Patent 11,383,874 B2 hereinafter “Wen”) in view of Wagner et al (US Patent application publication 20230347515 A1 hereinafter “Wagner”).
Regarding claim 1, Wen discloses in figure 1
A method for handling an object to be gripped (102) by a handling system (100) including
- an end effector (24) for gripping the object to be gripped,
- a manipulator (22) for moving the end effector;
- a marking device (150) for marking the object to be gripped, and
- a detection device (132) for detecting the marking on the object to be gripped
Wen pertains to a robotic system for moving and marking packages on a pallet and discloses “An end effector 24 is provided at the end of the arm 22 to pick up the packages 102 and move the packages 102” (col 3 ln 28). Wen refers to the markings on objects as labels on packages and discloses “The robotic labeling system 100 is an automated system used for labeling packages 102” (col 2 ln 56). Wen discloses several types of markers in figure 1, including an identification tag 104, a shipping label 106, and a customer specific label 108. Wen details that these markers are detected by a detection device my stating “In various embodiments, the scanning device 132 may include one or more cameras 134. The scanning device 132 is used to scan, and may image, the identification tag 104 to identify the package 102” (col 6 ln 39). Wen further discloses the method comprising:
- picking up the object to be gripped by the end effector, which involves gripping the object to be gripped by the end effector;
Wen discloses picking up the objects with a gripping end effector by detailing “An end effector 24 is provided at the end of the arm 22 to pick up the packages 102 and move the packages 102 to and from the labeling station 110. In various embodiments, the end effector 24 may be a vacuum end effector using suction to hold the package 102 on the end effector 24. Other types of end effectors may be used in alternative embodiments, such as a gripper”(col 3 ln28). Wen further discloses
- while the object is gripped by the end effector: marking the object to be gripped by the marking device when picking up the object to be gripped back up;
Wen details the coordinated action of marking the object while the object is gripped by stating “applying the label using a label applicator while the palletizing robot holds the package” (claim 19). Wen teaches that the markers, specifically customer specified labels, convey a broad range of information about the package by stating “In an exemplary embodiment, the package 102 receives one or more customer specified labels 108 at the labeling station 110. The customer specified label 108 or CSL 108 may contain information about the contents of the package 102 or other information. For example, the customer specified label 108 may contain information about the shipper of the package 102, the location of where the package 102 is being shipped from, return shipping information, warning labels regarding the package 102 or the content of the package 102, and the like” (col 6 ln 7). Wen does not teach that the markers provide information to align the end effector. However, Wagner teaches marking the object to be gripped by the marking device as a geometric reference for aligning the end effector when picking up the object. Wagner pertains to a system for robotic gripping of objects in a cluttered environment. Wagner further details that markings applied to the objects serve as a geometric reference for aligning the end effector by stating “In addition to geometric information the system may learn the location of fiducial markers such as barcodes on the object, which can be used as indicator for a surface patch that is flat and impermeable, hence suitable for a suction cup. One such example is shipping boxes and bags, which tend to have the shipping label at the object's center of mass and provide an impermeable surface, as opposed to the raw bag material which might be slightly porous and hence not present a good grasp. In accordance with further examples, the fiducial marker itself may not be the target, but may provide a reference for finding a target grasp location. Once a product is identified and its orientation is known for example, a certain distance (e.g., x, y) from a fiducial marker may be used as an optimal grasp location”(0037). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control at the time of applicant's effective filing date to include the end effector alignment information from the system of Wagner with the information provided in the marker of the system of Wen to indicate a surface patch on the object that is suitable for grasping by suction.
Wen in view of Wagner further discloses
- depositing the object to be gripped at a deposition location; and
- picking the object to be gripped back up by the end effector, which involves:
∙ detecting the marking by the detection device;
∙ aligning the end effector relative to the marking in order to grip the object to be gripped at the same position the object was previously gripped; and
∙ gripping the object to be gripped by the end effector.
Wen describes moving the packages from a de-palletizing station 60, and depositing the object at a deposition location (labeling station 110 or palletizing station 80) by detailing “In an exemplary embodiment, the palletizing robot 20 is configured to move the packages 120 among the palletizing station 80, the labeling station 110 and the de-palletizing station 60 as needed”(col 3 ln 36). Wen refers to “picking up the object back up” as restacking, detailing “The robotic labeling system 100 is operated to restack the labeled packages 102 after the labels have been applied” (col 8 ln42). Wen refers to detecting the marking as inspecting the label, detailing “After the label is applied, the method includes inspecting 534 the label using a label verification scanning device. The label may include a barcode and the label verification scanning device may be a barcode reader” (col 12 ln 25). As described above, Wen in view of Wagner discloses aligning the end effector relative to the marker in order to grip the object at the same position, with Wagner referring to the same position as the optimal grasp position. It is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that repeatedly gripping an object at the same position is analogous to repeatedly gripping an object at the optimal position.
Regarding Claim 2, Wen in view of Wagner discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Wagner further discloses wherein aligning the end effector involves moving the end effector relative to, and in parallel with, a surface of the object to be gripped until the marking is in a predetermined reference position relative to the end effector. Wagner details the alignment of the end effector by specifying “In accordance with further examples, the fiducial marker itself may not be the target, but may provide a reference for finding a target grasp location. Once a product is identified and its orientation is known for example, a certain distance (e.g., x, y) from a fiducial marker may be used as an optimal grasp location” (0037). Wagner details the alignment of the end effector being parallel with a surface of the object in figure 14a.
Regarding Claim 3, Wen in view of Wagner discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Wen further discloses wherein detecting the marking involves capturing a visual image or geometry of the marking. Wen refers to detecting the marking as scanning an identification tag, specifying “In various embodiments, the scanning device 132 may include one or more cameras 134. The scanning device 132 is used to scan, and may image, the identification tag 104 to identify the package 102” (col 6 ln 39).
Regarding Claim 5, Wen in view of Wagner discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Wen further discloses wherein the marking process involves applying a marking body to the object to be gripped. Wen specifies the marking body as a label, detailing “In an exemplary embodiment, the robotic labeling system 100 utilizes one or more robots for applying one or more labels on the packages 102” (col 3 ln 6).
Regarding Claim 8, Wen in view of Wagner discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Wen discloses wherein marking the object to be gripped involves applying a color marking to the object to be gripped. Wen describes applying the markings in terms of imprinting label information, specifying “In various embodiments, the labeling devices 160 may be label printers configured to print corresponding labels for the package 102. In other various embodiments, the labeling devices 160 may imprint labeling information directly on the package 102” (col 7 ln 11). Wen further describes the applied markings on the objects by stating “The label verification scanning device may verify that the information printed is legible and/or scannable” (col 10 ln 36). It is known to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that printed markings that are verified to be legible and/or scannable by a scanning device such as a camera inherently has a color.
Regarding Claim 11, Wen in view of Wagner discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Wen similarly discloses
the handling system (Wen Fig 1 100) comprising
the end effector for gripping the object to be gripped (Wen Fig 1 24);
the manipulator for moving the end effector (Wen Fig 1 22);
the marking device for marking the object to be gripped (Wen Fig 1 150);
the detection device for detecting the marking on the object to be gripped (Wen Fig 1 132); and
the control device for controlling the handling system (Wen Fig 1 50).
Claims 4, 10, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen in view of Wagner, further in view of Beach (U.S. Patent Application publication 20200031513 A1 hereinafter “Beach”).
Regarding Claim 4, Wen in view of Wagner discloses all the limitations of claim 1, including the gripping and picking back up of objects, but fails to teach changing or removing the marker. However, Beach teaches while the object to be gripped is being picked back up or thereafter: changing or removing the marking, by the marking device. Beach pertains to a robotic device for applying and removing markings and discloses “FIG. 3A illustrates a top view of the manipulator 216, when the manipulator 216 is oriented to remove or place a label” (0038). The picking and placing of objects within a facility, and the formatting of the markers may change over time, requiring previous markers to be replaced with new markers. Therefore, in order to remove the previous markings it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to use the system of Beach to remove the markings on the objects to be gripped in the system of Wen in view of Wagner.
Regarding Claim 10, Wen in view of Wagner discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach changing the temperature of the marking region. However, Beach teaches wherein marking the object to be gripped involves heating or cooling the marking region of the object to be gripped, wherein detecting the marking involves detecting a local temperature difference in the object to be gripped, by an infrared sensor or a thermal imaging camera. Beach pertains to a robotic device to apply and remove markers, and describes the application of heat to the marking region as “In addition, the apparatus 103 includes a heater 262, such as an inline heater mounted within an air conduit between the pressure generator 228 and the manipulator 216, permitting the manipulator 216 to emit pressurized heated air in order to remove adhesive labels” (0034). Beach further describes the application of cooling to the marking region as “For example, the apparatus 103 can include a cooler for cooling pressurized air from the pressure generator 228” (0034). Beach teaches detecting the local temperature difference with an infrared camera “The apparatus 103 further includes an image sensor 270 connected with the processor 250. The image sensor 270, which can be for example a digital color camera (e.g. configured to generate RGB images), a greyscale camera, an infrared camera or the like, is implemented as a component of the manipulator 216” (0036). The system of Beach pertains to applying markers to storage shelves, which are understood to be larger and less moveable than the objects to be gripped by Wen, Wagner, and the present application. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate the heater and infrared camera of Beach with the robotic gripping/marking system of Wen and Wagner in order to change and measure the local temperature of the marking region on the object to be gripped in order to facilitate the removal of the marking.
Regarding Claim 15, Wen in view of Wagner discloses all the limitations of claim 11, and Beach further discloses in figure 3a wherein the marking device is designed to apply a marking body to the object to be gripped or to remove the marking body again specifying “In particular, FIG. 3A illustrates a top view of the manipulator 216, when the manipulator 216 is oriented to remove or place a label” (0038).
Regarding Claim 17, Wen in view of Wagner discloses all the limitations of claim 11, and Wagner further discloses wherein the marking device is designed to apply a color marking to the object to be gripped, by detailing the use of label print media, as rejected in claim 8 above. Furthermore, Wen discloses in figure 4a, element 30 wherein the detection device comprises a camera for capturing a visual image of the color marking, as rejected in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 18, Wen in view of Wagner discloses all the limitations of claim 11, and Beach further discloses wherein the marking device is designed to locally heat or cool the object to be gripped, wherein the detection device comprises a sensor device or a temperature sensor, for detecting a temperature of the object to be gripped. Beach discloses heating by stating “the apparatus 103 includes a heater 262, such as an inline heater mounted within an air conduit between the pressure generator 228 and the manipulator 216, permitting the manipulator 216 to emit pressurized heated air” (0034). Beach discloses cooling by stating “the apparatus 103 can include a cooler for cooling pressurized air from the pressure generator 228” (0034). Beach discloses detecting the temperature by stating “The image sensor 270, which can be for example a digital color camera (e.g. configured to generate RGB images), a greyscale camera, an infrared camera or the like, is implemented as a component of the manipulator 216” (0036).
Claims 6, 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen in view of Wagner, further in view of Menon et al (U.S. Patent Application publication 20210122056 A1 hereinafter “Menon”).
Regarding Claim 6, Wen in view of Wagner discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach the use of magnetic markers. However, Menon teaches wherein marking the object to be gripped involves applying a permanent magnet to the object to be gripped. Menon pertains to a robotic object handling apparatus and discloses the use of magnetic markers by detailing “In some embodiments, a plurality of markers are embedded in the dielectric material” (0025) and “In some embodiments, a plurality of magnets are injected into the dielectric material” (0024). Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to use the magnetic markers of Menon with the object handling system of Wen in view of Wagner in order to mark objects under conditions where using the visible spectrum of light is disadvantageous, such as photography dark rooms.
Regarding Claim 7, Wen in view of Wagner, further in view of Menon discloses all the limitations of claim 6, and Menon further discloses wherein detecting the marking involves detecting a magnetic field emitted by the permanent magnet, by a magnetic field sensor or by a Hall-effect sensor. Menon discloses the use of a magnetic field sensor by detailing “The plurality of measurement objects are associated with a sensor 314 located in substrate layer 306. In the event the plurality of measurement objects are magnets, sensor 314 is a magnetic sensor” (0093).
Regarding Claim 16, Wen in view of Wagner discloses all the limitations of claim 11, but fails to teach the use of magnetic markers. However, Menon teaches wherein the marking device is designed to apply a permanent magnet to the object to be gripped, wherein the detection device comprises a sensor device for detecting a magnetic field emitted by the permanent magnet. Menon pertains to a robotic handling system and discloses the use of magnetic markers by detailing “In some embodiments, a plurality of markers are embedded in the dielectric material” (0025) further specifying “In some embodiments, a plurality of magnets are injected into the dielectric material” (0024). Menon discloses the sensing of these magnetic fields by detailing “The plurality of measurement objects are associated with a sensor 314 located in substrate layer 306. In the event the plurality of measurement objects are magnets, sensor 314 is a magnetic sensor” (0093). Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to use the magnetic markers and magnetic sensor of Menon with the object handling system of Wen in view of Wagner and Beach in order to mark and sense objects under conditions where using the visible spectrum of light is disadvantageous, such as photography dark rooms.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen in view of Wagner, further in view of Sansom et al (U.S. Patent 4956636 A hereinafter “Sansom”).
Regarding Claim 9, Wen in view of Wagner discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach changing the magnetic polarization of markers. However, Sansom teaches wherein the object to be gripped is made of a magnetically polarizable material or comprises a magnetically polarizable ferromagnetic material at least in a marking region, wherein marking the object to be gripped involves changing the magnetic polarization of the object to be gripped in the marking region, wherein the removal of the marking involves counter-magnetizing the marking region or heating the marking region above a Curie temperature of the object to be gripped. Sansom pertains to a marker for use with an electromagnetic identification system and discloses “When using a ribbon as the magnetically soft element 30', the available steady state flux and field levels are sufficient to de-activate the tag in accordance with the arrangement shown in FIG. 1 (d)” (column 3, line 54). Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to use the editable magnetic markers of Sansom with the object handling system of Wen in view of Wagner in order to mark, re-mark, or un-mark, objects under conditions where using the visible spectrum of light is disadvantageous, such as photography dark rooms.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
• Peters et al US Patent Application publication 20180290302. The present office action
refers to labels as marking bodies. Peters et al pertains to a robotic system of marking objects with larger marking bodies that contain fiducial markings to convey information about the object.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan Daniel Neckel whose telephone number is (571)272-9537. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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.
/NATHAN DANIEL NECKEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
