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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-19 as filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: unclear scope of end effector. Claim 13 concludes with
the end effector comprising a gripping apparatus or a suction gripper, for gripping an object to be gripped and the marking device for marking the object to be gripped.
Examiner suggests changing to, and will further evaluate the claim if as written as
the end effector comprising:
a gripping apparatus or a suction gripper, for gripping an object to be gripped, and
the marking device for marking the object to be gripped.
Examiner believes that the colon after “comprising” and the comma after “gripped” further clarify that there are two distinct tools present on the end effector, as seen in figure 2 of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattern et al. (US Patent Application 20140154036 A1 hereinafter “Mattern”) in view of Beck et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20230031377 A1 hereinafter “Beck”).
Regarding Claim 1, Mattern discloses in figures 1, 4a, and 23-25
A method for handling an object to be gripped by a handling system (Fig 1. S1-S6) including
an end effector for gripping the object to be gripped (Fig 4a. 34),
a manipulator for moving the end effector (Fig 4a. 33);
a detection device for detecting the marking on the object to be gripped (Fig 4a. 30),
the method comprising (Figs 24-25):
picking up the object to be gripped by the end effector, which involves gripping the object to be gripped by the end effector (Fig 23 103);
depositing the object to be gripped at a deposition location (Fig 24 121);
picking the object to be gripped back up by the end effector, which involves (Fig 23 103);
detecting the marking by the detection device (130)
aligning the end effector relative to the marking;
gripping the object to be gripped by the end effector. (Fig 25 131)
Mattern pertains to an apparatus for the gripping of workpieces, and further details the detection device by stating “First, in steps 130, a workpiece travels on the transport belt into the recognition region of the object recognition device and the transport belt stops” (0252). Mattern describes the alignment of the end effector in terms of an offset, detailing “In this case, a picking can already be planned in the track planning with an offset at which the gripping surface and the main surface of the workpiece do not fully overlap or a picking at the highest point can be planned” (0249). Mattern teaches a pretreatment area where objects can be marked “It is equally conceivable to identify or to detect and/or to mark the workpieces by reading a label and/or by printing with a label” (0023) as well as “The apparatus in accordance with claim 4 comprising a functional region and/or a functional arrangement which serve, for example, a pretreatment, recognition and/or marking of the workpieces” (Claim 10) but is generally silent on the details of the marking system. However, Beck teaches a marking device for marking the object to be gripped in addition to marking the object to be gripped by the marking device. Beck pertains to a robotic arm that applies a marker to an object (Fig 3 204) with the method disclosed in steps 840 and 850 of figure 8. Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to use the marking system of Beck to provide the missing details of the pretreatment area of the object handling system of Mattern.
Regarding Claim 2, Mattern in view of Beck discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Beck 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. Beck details the alignment of the marking device by specifying “As shown in FIG. 1C, the robotic arm movement may correspond to an alignment with an axis (e.g., a center axis, a longitudinal axis and/or a lateral axis) of the object and/or an alignment with a label receiving area of the object. Accordingly, the label application system, via the controller, may control the robotic arm to move the label printer across the label receiving area (so that the label is peeled, tamped, and/or adhered to the object within the label receiving area)” (0039).
Regarding Claim 3, Mattern in view of Beck discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Mattern discloses wherein detecting the marking involves capturing a visual image or geometry of the marking by further detailing the object recognition device as “Alternatively or additionally, the object recognition device can comprise one or more cameras” (0075).
Regarding Claim 5, Mattern in view of Beck discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Beck discloses wherein the marking process involves applying a marking body to the object to be gripped. Beck specifies the marking body as a label, detailing “Once the label is printed and/or output from the label printer, the controller may cause the label printer to apply the label to the object. For example, the controller may cause the printer to apply the label to the object using a tamp” (0039).
Regarding Claim 8, Mattern in view of Beck discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Beck discloses wherein marking the object to be gripped involves applying a color marking to the object to be gripped. Beck describes the markings in terms of label print media “More specifically, the label application system may select a label printer that is loaded with a minimum threshold of print media (e.g., a minimum quantity of paper labels, a minimum length of a roll of labels, and so on)” (0030). It is known to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that print media to be sensed by an optical sensor such as a camera inherently has color.
Regarding Claim 11, Mattern in view of Beck discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Mattern in view of Beck similarly discloses
the handling system comprising
the end effector for gripping the object to be gripped (Mattern Fig 4a 34);
the manipulator for moving the end effector (Mattern Fig 4a 33);
the marking device for marking the object to be gripped (Beck Fig 3 204);
the detection device for detecting the marking on the object to be gripped (Mattern Fig 4a 30); and
the control device for controlling the handling system (Mattern Fig 1 7).
Regarding Claim 19, as rejected in claims 1 and 11 above, Mattern in view of Beck discloses A handling system comprising:
an end effector for gripping an object to be gripped (Mattern Fig 4a 34);
a manipulator for moving the end effector (Mattern Fig 4a 33);
a marking device for marking the object to be gripped (Beck Fig 3 204);
a detection device for detecting the marking on the object to be gripped (Mattern Fig 4a 30); and
a control device for controlling the handling system (Mattern Fig 1 7).
Claims 4, 10, and 13-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattern in view of Beck, further in view of Beach (U.S. Patent Application 20200031513 A1 hereinafter “Beach”).
Regarding Claim 4, Mattern in view of Beck discloses all the limitations of claim 1, including the gripping and picking 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 Mattern in view of Beck.
Regarding Claim 10, Mattern in view of Beck 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 Mattern, Beck, 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 Mattern and Beck 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 13, Mattern in view of Beck discloses all the limitations of claim 11, but fails to teach having multiple tools on one end effector, specifically the gripping tool of Mattern and the marking tool of Beck. However, Beach teaches An end effector for use in the handling system according to claim 11, the end effector comprising a gripping apparatus or a suction gripper, for gripping an object to be gripped and the marking device for marking the object to be gripped. Beach discloses in figure 2a both the marking manipulator (216) and the marking generator (224) attached to the same platform (208) that is moveable (204). Beach further discloses that the marking manipulator contains a suction tool for gripping “The apparatus 103 also includes a pressure generator 228 configured to supply one or both of a vacuum (i.e. negative pressure) or pressurized air to the manipulator 216 to allow the manipulator 216 to grasp and release labels” (0029). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to have an end effector comprising both the gripping apparatus and marking device such as taught by Beach in order to reduce to number of parts needed. Furthermore, the result would have been merely combining known elements to achieve predictable results (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 14, Mattern in view of Beck, further in view of Beach discloses all the limitations of claim 13, and Beach further discloses further comprising the detection device (28) for identifying the marking on the object to be gripped by describing the detection device located in the end effector as “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). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to have an end effector comprising; a gripping apparatus, a marking device, and a detection device such as taught by Beach in order to reduce to number of parts needed. Furthermore, the result would have been merely combining known elements to achieve predictable results (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 15, Mattern in view of Beck, further in view of Beach discloses all the limitations of claim 14, 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, Mattern in view of Beck, further in view of Beach discloses all the limitations of claim 14, and Beck 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, Mattern 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, Mattern in view of Beck, further in view of Beach discloses all the limitations of claim 14, 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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattern in view of Beck, further in view of Menon et al (U.S. Patent Application 20210122056 A1 hereinafter “Menon”).
Regarding Claim 6, Mattern in view of Beck 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 Mattern in view of Beck in order to mark objects under conditions where using the visible spectrum of light is disadvantageous, such as photography dark rooms.
Regarding Claim 7, Mattern in view of Beck, 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).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattern in view of Beck, further in view of Sansom et al (U.S. Patent 4956636 A hereinafter “Sansom”).
Regarding Claim 9, Mattern in view of Beck 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 Mattern in view of Beck 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattern in view of Beck, Beach, and Menon.
Regarding Claim 16, Mattern in view of Beck, further in view of Beach discloses all the limitations of claim 14, 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 Mattern in view of Beck 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights