DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “702” has been used to indicate both “Smart Gripper Controller” and “Confident Ctl” in Fig. 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
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;
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
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 limitation 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 limitation is: “computing device programmed to: receive … determine … determine … and control …” in Claim 19.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it 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 limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US Pub. No. 2021/0229292) in view of Russell (US Patent No. 10,108,194).
As per Claim 1, Liu discloses method of grasping an object (as per “items” in ¶31) by a suction-based gripper (as per “Picking element 110 comprises a set of suction-based picking mechanisms” in ¶31) of a robot (105), the method comprising:
receiving (as per arrow from 505 to 510 in Fig. 5), by a computing device (905), from a perception system (130/135), perception information (505) reflecting an object (as per “items” in ¶31) to be grasped by the suction-based gripper (110) (Figs. 1, 5, 9; ¶31-38, 47-50, 63-66);
determining, by the computing device (905), uncertainty information (as per 205-215 in Fig. 2; as per 305-325 in Fig. 3) reflecting an unknown or uncertain extent (as per “modeling uncertainty in various dimensions” in ¶39) and/or pose (as per “There are many possible variations regarding what could be true for the uncertain parts of an object. Each box may be different in length, width, height, position, pose, angle and similar properties” in ¶44) of the object (as per “items” in ¶31) (Figs. 1-3, 9; ¶31-45, 63-66);
determining, by the computing device (905), a grasp strategy (as per “The system can then make decisions related to future actions performed by the robotic device … and operate the robotic device accordingly” in ¶24; as per 405-420 in Fig. 4; as per “DECISION” in Fig. 5) to grasp the object (as per “items” in ¶31) based, at least in part, on the uncertainty information (as per 205-215 in Fig. 2; as per 305-325 in Fig. 3) (Figs. 1-5, 9; ¶31-50, 63-66); and
controlling, by the computing device (905), the robot (105) to grasp the object (as per “items” in ¶31) using the grasp strategy (as per “The system can then make decisions related to future actions performed by the robotic device … and operate the robotic device accordingly” in ¶24; as per 405-420 in Fig. 4; as per “DECISION” in Fig. 5) (Figs. 1, 5, 9; ¶31-38, 47-50, 63-66).
Liu does not expressly disclose:
wherein the robot is a mobile robot; and
wherein the perception system is of the robot.
Russell discloses a robotic truck unloader (300) that includes a robotic arm (302) with a suction grid gripper (304) for gripping objects within the environment (Fig. 3A; 15:9-16:7). The truck unloader (300) also includes a moveable cart (312) with wheels (314) for locomotion (Fig. 3A; 15:30-42). A sensing system of the truck unloader (300) also includes sensors (306, 308) that are two-dimensional and/or 3D depth sensors that sense information about the environment as the robotic arm (302) moves (Fig. 3A; 15:43-50). In this way, the unloader (300) is adapted to determine pick positions for objects and navigate the mobile base into a position for unloading or loading within a warehouse (15:9-64). Like Liu, Russell is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Liu and Russell, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Russell to the system of Liu since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for navigation within a warehouse. Applying the teachings of Liu and Russel would result in a system that operates “wherein the robot is a mobile robot; and wherein the perception system is of the robot” in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would be adapted for navigation within a warehouse as per Russell.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Liu and Russell teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Liu further discloses wherein
receiving perception information (505) reflecting an object (as per “items” in ¶31) to be grasped comprises receiving (as per arrow from 505 to 510 in Fig. 5) information (505) on a first extent (as per first dimension of a side of bounding box) and a second extent (as per second dimension of a side of bounding box) of a first face (as per dimensions of each side of bounding box) of the object (as per “items” in ¶31) (Figs. 5, 6A-8; ¶47-60), and
determining uncertainty information (as per 205-215 in Fig. 2; as per 305-325 in Fig. 3) comprises determining uncertainty information (as per “size of bounding boxes” corresponding to uncertainty in specified dimension in ¶60) for a third extent (as per third dimension of a side of bounding box) of a second face (as per dimensions of each side of bounding box) of the object (as per “items” in ¶31) (Figs. 5, 6A-8; ¶47-60).
As per Claim 3, the combination of Liu and Russell teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Liu further discloses wherein the second face (as per dimensions of each side of bounding box) shares (as per adjacent faces of bounding box) one of the first extent (as per first dimension of a side of bounding box) or the second extent (as per second dimension of a side of bounding box) with the first face (as per dimensions of each side of bounding box) (Figs. 5, 6A-8; ¶47-60).
As per Claim 13, the combination of Liu and Russell teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Liu further discloses wherein determining a grasp strategy (as per “The system can then make decisions related to future actions performed by the robotic device … and operate the robotic device accordingly” in ¶24; as per 405-420 in Fig. 4; as per “DECISION” in Fig. 5) comprises:
determining a pick trajectory (as per “guide the robotic arm 105 to the item” in ¶34) of a manipulator (105) including the suction-based gripper (as per “Picking element 110 comprises a set of suction-based picking mechanisms” in ¶31) based, at least in part, on the uncertainty information (as per 205-215 in Fig. 2; as per 305-325 in Fig. 3); and
controlling the robot (105) to grasp the object (as per “items” in ¶31) comprises controlling the robot (105) to grasp (via picking element 110) the object (as per “items” in ¶31) based, at least in part, on the determined pick trajectory (as per “guide the robotic arm 105 to the item” in ¶34).
Liu does not expressly disclose wherein the robot is a mobile robot.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Russell.
Therefore, from these teachings of Liu and Russell, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Russell to the system of Liu since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for navigation within a warehouse. Applying the teachings of Liu and Russel would result in a system that operates “wherein the robot is a mobile robot” in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would be adapted for navigation within a warehouse as per Russell.
As per Claim 14, the combination of Liu and Russell teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 13. Liu further discloses wherein determining a pick trajectory (as per “guide the robotic arm 105 to the item” in ¶34) of the manipulator (105) comprises:
determining a terminal end-effector pose (as per “how to pick up the item” in ¶30; as per “how to pick it up” in ¶33) of the pick trajectory (as per “guide the robotic arm 105 to the item” in ¶34) based, at least in part, on the uncertainty information (as per 205-215 in Fig. 2; as per 305-325 in Fig. 3).
As per Claim 19, Liu discloses a robot (105) (Fig. 1; ¶31), comprising:
a suction-based gripper (as per “Picking element 110 comprises a set of suction-based picking mechanisms” in ¶31) (Fig. 1; ¶31, 33);
a perception system (130/135) (Fig. 1; ¶31); and
at least one computing device (905) (Fig. 9; ¶63-66) programmed to:
receive (as per arrow from 505 to 510 in Fig. 5) from the perception system (130/135), perception information (505) reflecting an object (as per “items” in ¶31) to be grasped by the suction-based gripper (110) (Figs. 1, 5, 9; ¶31-38, 47-50, 63-66);
determine uncertainty information (as per 205-215 in Fig. 2; as per 305-325 in Fig. 3) reflecting an unknown or uncertain extent (as per “modeling uncertainty in various dimensions” in ¶39) and/or pose (as per “There are many possible variations regarding what could be true for the uncertain parts of an object. Each box may be different in length, width, height, position, pose, angle and similar properties” in ¶44) of the object (as per “items” in ¶31) (Figs. 1-3, 9; ¶31-45, 63-66);
determine a grasp strategy (as per “The system can then make decisions related to future actions performed by the robotic device … and operate the robotic device accordingly” in ¶24; as per 405-420 in Fig. 4; as per “DECISION” in Fig. 5) to grasp the object (as per “items” in ¶31) based, at least in part, on the uncertainty information (as per 205-215 in Fig. 2; as per 305-325 in Fig. 3) (Figs. 1-5, 9; ¶31-50, 63-66); and
control the robot (105) to grasp the object (as per “items” in ¶31) using the grasp strategy (as per “The system can then make decisions related to future actions performed by the robotic device … and operate the robotic device accordingly” in ¶24; as per 405-420 in Fig. 4; as per “DECISION” in Fig. 5) (Figs. 1, 5, 9; ¶31-38, 47-50, 63-66).
Liu does not expressly disclose wherein the robot is a mobile robot.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Russell.
Therefore, from these teachings of Liu and Russell, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Russell to the system of Liu since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for navigation within a warehouse. Applying the teachings of Liu and Russel would result in a system that operates “wherein the robot is a mobile robot” in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would be adapted for navigation within a warehouse as per Russell.
As per Claim 20, Liu discloses a controller (905) for a robot (105) (Figs. 1, 9; ¶31, 63-68), the controller (905) comprising:
at least one computing device (905) programed with a plurality of instructions (as per “program instructions” in ¶66) that, when executed, perform a method comprising:
receiving (as per arrow from 505 to 510 in Fig. 5) from a perception system (130/135), perception information (505) reflecting an object (as per “items” in ¶31) to be grasped (via picking element 110) by the robot (105) (Figs. 1, 5; ¶31-38, 47-50);
determining uncertainty information (as per 205-215 in Fig. 2; as per 305-325 in Fig. 3) reflecting an unknown or uncertain extent (as per “modeling uncertainty in various dimensions” in ¶39) and/or pose (as per “There are many possible variations regarding what could be true for the uncertain parts of an object. Each box may be different in length, width, height, position, pose, angle and similar properties” in ¶44) of the object (as per “items” in ¶31) (Figs. 1-3; ¶31-45);
determining a grasp strategy (as per “The system can then make decisions related to future actions performed by the robotic device … and operate the robotic device accordingly” in ¶24; as per 405-420 in Fig. 4; as per “DECISION” in Fig. 5) to grasp the object (as per “items” in ¶31) based, at least in part, on the uncertainty information (as per 205-215 in Fig. 2; as per 305-325 in Fig. 3) (Figs. 1-5; ¶31-50); and
controlling the robot (105) to grasp the object (as per “items” in ¶31) using the grasp strategy (as per “The system can then make decisions related to future actions performed by the robotic device … and operate the robotic device accordingly” in ¶24; as per 405-420 in Fig. 4; as per “DECISION” in Fig. 5) (Figs. 1, 5; ¶31-38, 47-50).
Liu does not expressly disclose:
wherein the robot is a mobile robot; and
wherein the perception system is of the robot.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Russell.
Therefore, from these teachings of Liu and Russell, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Russell to the system of Liu since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system for navigation within a warehouse. Applying the teachings of Liu and Russel would result in a system that operates “wherein the robot is a mobile robot; and wherein the perception system is of the robot” in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would be adapted for navigation within a warehouse as per Russell.
Claims 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US Pub. No. 2021/0229292) in view of Russell (US Patent No. 10,108,194), further in view of Saunders (US Pub. No. 2021/0178579).
As per Claim 4, the combination of Liu and Russell teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Liu does not expressly disclose wherein determining a grasp strategy comprises:
assigning a classification to each of a plurality of suction cups of the suction-based gripper based, at least in part, on the uncertainty information and an orientation of the suction-based gripper relative to a face of the object having an uncertain extent,
wherein controlling the mobile robot to grasp the object comprises controlling the mobile robot to grasp the object based, at least in part, on the classification assigned to each of the plurality of suction cups of the suction-based gripper.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Russell.
Saunders discloses a robot (100) that includes a vacuum based gripper (160) for moving boxes (20a) (Fig. 1A; ¶63). The gripper (160/200) includes a plurality of vacuum assemblies (300) that are individually addressable and a controller is configured to control operation of the vacuum assemblies (300) based on a relevant parameter (Fig. 2A; ¶86-87, 90). In operation, the gripper (160/200/700) contacts a box (20a/730) and individual cup assemblies (300/702) are appropriately deactivated (710) and activated (720) (Fig. 7A; ¶112). Information from cameras is used to determine whether or not individual cup assemblies should be activated or deactivated (¶114). In this way, grasping capabilities are improved (¶62). Like Liu, Saunders is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Liu, Russell, and Saunders, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Russell and Saunders to the system of Liu since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for navigation within a warehouse; and improving grasping capabilities. Applying the teachings of Russell and Saunders to the system of Liu would result in a system wherein determining a grasp strategy comprises:
“assigning a classification to each of a plurality of suction cups of the suction-based gripper based, at least in part, on the uncertainty information and an orientation of the suction-based gripper relative to a face of the object having an uncertain extent” in that the image data processed to govern operation of the robot arm (105) of Liu would further govern selective actuation of individual suction cups in view of imaging data as per Saunders;
“wherein controlling the mobile robot to grasp the object comprises controlling the mobile robot to grasp the object based, at least in part, on the classification assigned to each of the plurality of suction cups of the suction-based gripper” in that the image data processed to govern operation of the robot arm (105) of Liu would further govern selective actuation of individual suction cups in view of imaging data as per Saunders and in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would be further adapted for navigation within a warehouse as per Russell.
As per Claim 5, the combination of Liu, Russell, and Saunders teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 4. Liu further discloses wherein determining uncertainty information (as per 205-215 in Fig. 2; as per 305-325 in Fig. 3) for a third extent (as per third dimension of a side of bounding box (as per third dimension of a side of bounding box) of a second face (as per dimensions of each side of bounding box) of the object (as per “items” in ¶31) (Figs. 5, 6A-8; ¶47-60) comprises:
defining a first polygon (as per perimeter of side of bounding box) relative to the second face (as per dimensions of each side of bounding box), wherein the first polygon (as per perimeter of side of bounding box) has a first value (as per “certain dimensions remain the same” in ¶60) for the third extent (as per third dimension of a side of bounding box) (Figs. 5, 6A-8; ¶47-60); and
defining a second polygon (as per perimeter of another side of bounding box) relative to the second face (as per dimensions of each side of bounding box), wherein the second polygon (as per perimeter of another side of bounding box) has a second value (as per “dimensions that cannot be seen in the image” in ¶60) for the third extent (as per third dimension of a side of bounding box), wherein the second value (as per “dimensions that cannot be seen in the image” in ¶60) is larger than the first value (as per “certain dimensions remain the same” in ¶60) (Figs. 5, 6A-8; ¶47-60).
As per Claim 6, the combination of Liu, Russell, and Saunders teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 5. Liu does not expressly disclose wherein assigning a classification to each of a plurality of suction cups of the suction-based gripper comprises:
associating a first classification with a suction cup located within the first polygon; and
associating a second classification with a suction cup located outside of the first polygon and within the second polygon.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Russell.
See rejection of Claim 4 for discussion of teachings of Saunders.
Therefore, from these teachings of Liu, Russell, and Saunders, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Russell and Saunders to the system of Liu since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for navigation within a warehouse; and improving grasping capabilities. Applying the teachings of Russell and Saunders to the system of Liu would result in a system wherein assigning a classification to each of a plurality of suction cups of the suction-based gripper comprises:
“associating a first classification with a suction cup located within the first polygon” in that the image data processed to govern operation of the robot arm (105) of Liu would further govern selective actuation of individual suction cups in view of imaging data as per Saunders; and
“associating a second classification with a suction cup located outside of the first polygon and within the second polygon” in that the image data processed to govern operation of the robot arm (105) of Liu would further govern selective actuation of individual suction cups in view of imaging data as per Saunders.
As per Claim 7, the combination of Liu, Russell, and Saunders teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 6. Liu does not expressly disclose wherein controlling the mobile robot to grasp the object comprises selectively activating suction cups associated with the first classification.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Russell.
See rejection of Claim 4 for discussion of teachings of Saunders.
Therefore, from these teachings of Liu, Russell, and Saunders, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Russell and Saunders to the system of Liu since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for navigation within a warehouse; and improving grasping capabilities. Applying the teachings of Russell and Saunders to the system of Liu would result in a system “wherein controlling the mobile robot to grasp the object comprises selectively activating suction cups associated with the first classification” in that the image data processed to govern operation of the robot arm (105) of Liu would further govern selective actuation of individual suction cups in view of imaging data as per Saunders and in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would be further adapted for navigation within a warehouse as per Russell.
As per Claim 8, the combination of Liu, Russell, and Saunders teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 6. Liu does not expressly disclose wherein controlling the mobile robot to grasp the object comprises:
activating suction cups associated with the first classification at a first time; and
activating a first subset of suction cups associated with the second classification at a second time after the first time.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Russell.
See rejection of Claim 4 for discussion of teachings of Saunders. Saunders further discloses adjusting amount of vacuum supplied to one or more cup assemblies in response to a determined pressure level at a second time after a first time (Fig. 5; ¶96-103).
Therefore, from these teachings of Liu, Russell, and Saunders, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Russell and Saunders to the system of Liu since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for navigation within a warehouse; and improving grasping capabilities. Applying the teachings of Russell and Saunders to the system of Liu would result in a system wherein controlling the mobile robot to grasp the object comprises:
“activating suction cups associated with the first classification at a first time” in that the image data processed to govern operation of the robot arm (105) of Liu would further govern selective actuation at specified times of individual suction cups in view of imaging data as per Saunders and in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would be further adapted for navigation within a warehouse as per Russell;
“activating a first subset of suction cups associated with the second classification at a second time after the first time” in that the image data processed to govern operation of the robot arm (105) of Liu would further govern selective actuation at specified times of individual suction cups in view of imaging data as per Saunders and in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would be further adapted for navigation within a warehouse as per Russell.
As per Claim 9, the combination of Liu, Russell, and Saunders teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 8. Liu does not expressly disclose wherein controlling the mobile robot to grasp the object further comprises:
activating a second subset of suction cups associated with the second classification at a third time after the second time,
wherein the second subset includes at least one suction cup from the first subset and at least one suction cup not included in the first subset.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Russell.
See rejection of Claim 4 for discussion of teachings of Saunders. Saunders further discloses adjusting amount of vacuum supplied to one or more cup assemblies in response to a determined pressure level at a second time after a first time (Fig. 5; ¶96-103).
Therefore, from these teachings of Liu, Russell, and Saunders, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Russell and Saunders to the system of Liu since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for navigation within a warehouse; and improving grasping capabilities. Applying the teachings of Russell and Saunders to the system of Liu would result in a system wherein controlling the mobile robot to grasp the object further comprises:
“activating a second subset of suction cups associated with the second classification at a third time after the second time” in that the image data processed to govern operation of the robot arm (105) of Liu would further govern selective actuation at specified times of individual suction cups in view of imaging data as per Saunders and in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would be further adapted for navigation within a warehouse as per Russell;
“wherein the second subset includes at least one suction cup from the first subset and at least one suction cup not included in the first subset” in that the image data processed to govern operation of the robot arm (105) of Liu would further govern selective actuation at specified times of individual suction cups in view of imaging data as per Saunders and in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would be further adapted for navigation within a warehouse as per Russell.
As per Claim 10, the combination of Liu, Russell, and Saunders teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Liu does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one suction cup not included in the first subset comprises a suction cup neighboring a suction cup in the first subset having a seal quality above a threshold seal quality.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Russell.
See rejection of Claim 4 for discussion of teachings of Saunders. Saunders further discloses adjusting amount of vacuum supplied to one or more cup assemblies in response to a determined pressure level defining a seal quality at a second time after a first time (Fig. 5; ¶95-103).
Therefore, from these teachings of Liu, Russell, and Saunders, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Russell and Saunders to the system of Liu since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for navigation within a warehouse; and improving grasping capabilities. Applying the teachings of Russell and Saunders to the system of Liu would result in a system “wherein the at least one suction cup not included in the first subset comprises a suction cup neighboring a suction cup in the first subset having a seal quality above a threshold seal quality” in that the image data processed to govern operation of the robot arm (105) of Liu would further govern selective actuation at specified times and according to a predetermined seal quality of individual suction cups in view of imaging data as per Saunders and in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would be further adapted for navigation within a warehouse as per Russell.
As per Claim 11, the combination of Liu, Russell, and Saunders teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 8. Liu does not expressly disclose wherein controlling the mobile robot to grasp the object further comprises:
deactivating one or more of the suction cups in the first subset having a seal quality below a threshold seal quality.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Russell.
See rejection of Claim 4 for discussion of teachings of Saunders. Saunders further discloses adjusting amount of vacuum supplied to one or more cup assemblies in response to a determined pressure level defining a seal quality at a second time after a first time (Fig. 5; ¶95-103). In response to a determination that the determined pressure level is below a threshold value, it is determined that the seal between the cup assembly and the object is poor and the amount of vacuum supplied to that cup assembly is reduced (¶98).
Therefore, from these teachings of Liu, Russell, and Saunders, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Russell and Saunders to the system of Liu since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for navigation within a warehouse; and improving grasping capabilities. Applying the teachings of Russell and Saunders to the system of Liu would result in a system “wherein controlling the mobile robot to grasp the object further comprises: deactivating one or more of the suction cups in the first subset having a seal quality below a threshold seal quality” in that the image data processed to govern operation of the robot arm (105) of Liu would further govern selective actuation at specified times and according to a predetermined seal quality of individual suction cups in view of imaging data as per Saunders and in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would be further adapted for navigation within a warehouse as per Russell.
As per Claim 12, the combination of Liu, Russell, and Saunders teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Liu does not expressly disclose selecting suction cups to include in the first subset based, at least in part, on one or more of an amount of available vacuum pressure for the mobile robot, an amount of flow allowed through the suction-based gripper, or the orientation of the suction-based gripper relative to the face of the object.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Russell.
See rejection of Claim 4 for discussion of teachings of Saunders.
Therefore, from these teachings of Liu, Russell, and Saunders, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Russell and Saunders to the system of Liu since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for navigation within a warehouse; and improving grasping capabilities. Applying the teachings of Russell and Saunders to the system of Liu would result in a system wherein “selecting suction cups to include in the first subset based, at least in part, on one or more of {an amount of available vacuum pressure for the mobile robot}, {an amount of flow allowed through the suction-based gripper}, or the orientation of the suction-based gripper relative to the face of the object” in that in that the image data processed to govern operation of the robot arm (105) of Liu would further govern selective actuation of individual suction cups in view of imaging data as per Saunders.
Claims 15-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US Pub. No. 2021/0229292) in view of Russell (US Patent No. 10,108,194), further in view of Aiso (US Pub. No. 2015/0105907).
As per Claim 15, the combination of Liu and Russell teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 14. Liu does not expressly disclose wherein determining a pick trajectory of the manipulator further comprises:
determining an intermediate end-effector pose of the pick trajectory; and
determining the pick trajectory by constraining the pick trajectory to follow a target twist with a constant angular component from the intermediate end-effector pose to the terminal end-effector pose.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Russell.
Aiso discloses a robot system (1) in which a robot (20) operates a hand (26) to grasp a work (W1) (Fig. 1; ¶54-57). The hand (26) is provided on the distal end of an arm (22) of the robot (20), the arm (22) including one or more joints (23) and links (24) (Fig. 1; ¶57). The robot (20) is governed by a robot controller (10) that includes a position control unit (210) that: determines a trajectory of the end point corresponding to amounts of movement and directions of movement of the end point in time series; determines the next movement position of target joint angles of respective actuators provided in the joints (23) based on the determined amount of movement and direction of movement; and generates a movement command value for moving the end point by the target angles and outputs the value (Fig. 11; ¶15-117, 127). In this way, the object is moved efficiently to target position (¶7). Like Liu, Aiso is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Liu, Russell, and Aiso, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Russell and Aiso to the system of Liu since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for navigation within a warehouse; and efficiently moving objects to a target position. Applying the teachings of Russell and Aiso to the system of Liu would result in a system that operates wherein determining a pick trajectory of the manipulator further comprises:
“determining an intermediate end-effector pose of the pick trajectory” in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would operate in view of trajectory data in time series as per Aiso; and
“determining the pick trajectory by constraining the pick trajectory to follow a target twist with a constant angular component from the intermediate end-effector pose to the terminal end-effector pose” in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would operate in view of trajectory data in time series and with specified target joint angles as per Aiso.
As per Claim 16, the combination of Liu, Russell, and Aiso teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Liu does not expressly disclose wherein the intermediate end-effector pose is determined, at least in part, on one or more of the terminal end-effector pose, a reach of the manipulator or a height of a distance sensor on a base of the mobile robot.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Russell.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Aiso.
Therefore, from these teachings of Liu, Russell, and Aiso, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Russell and Aiso to the system of Liu since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for navigation within a warehouse; and efficiently moving objects to a target position. Applying the teachings of Russell and Aiso to the system of Liu would result in a system that operates “wherein the intermediate end-effector pose is determined, at least in part, on one or more of the terminal end-effector pose, {a reach of the manipulator or a height of a distance sensor on a base of the mobile robot}” in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would operate in view of trajectory data in time series and with specified target joint angles as per Aiso.
As per Claim 17, the combination of Liu, Russell, and Aiso teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Liu does not expressly disclose wherein controlling the mobile robot to grasp the object based, at least in part, on the determined pick trajectory comprises:
detecting, as the manipulator is advanced along the pick trajectory, that a force associated with the manipulator exceeds a threshold value; and
stopping advancing of the manipulator in response to determining that the force exceeds the threshold value.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Russell.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Aiso. Aiso further discloses impedance control in which an impedance control unit (220) determines to end impedance control (as per S311) in response to determination that the value of force from a force sensor (25) exceeds a designated value (Fig. 18; ¶187-197).
Therefore, from these teachings of Liu, Russell, and Aiso, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Russell and Aiso to the system of Liu since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for navigation within a warehouse; and efficiently moving objects to a target position. Applying the teachings of Russell and Aiso to the system of Liu would result in a system that operates wherein controlling the mobile robot to grasp the object based, at least in part, on the determined pick trajectory comprises:
“detecting, as the manipulator is advanced along the pick trajectory, that a force associated with the manipulator exceeds a threshold value” in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would operate in view of trajectory data in time series and impedance control as per Aiso; and
“stopping advancing of the manipulator in response to determining that the force exceeds the threshold value” in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would operate in view of trajectory data in time series and impedance control as per Aiso.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US Pub. No. 2021/0229292) in view of Russell (US Patent No. 10,108,194), further in view of Aiso (US Pub. No. 2015/0105907), further in view of Saunders (US Pub. No. 2021/0178579).
As per Claim 18, the combination of Liu, Russell, and Aiso teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 17. Liu does not expressly disclose wherein controlling the mobile robot to grasp the object based, at least in part, on the determined pick trajectory further comprises:
activating one or more suction cups of the suction-based gripper as the manipulator is advanced along the pick trajectory; and
sensing as the force, a seal quality between one or more of the activated one or more suction cups and the object.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Russell.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Aiso. Aiso further discloses impedance control in which an impedance control unit (220) determines to end impedance control (as per S311) in response to determination that the value of force from a force sensor (25) exceeds a designated value (Fig. 18; ¶187-197).
See rejection of Claim 4 for discussion of teachings of Saunders. Saunders further discloses adjusting amount of vacuum supplied to one or more cup assemblies in response to a determined pressure level defining a seal quality at a second time after a first time (Fig. 5; ¶95-103).
Therefore, from these teachings of Liu, Russell, Aiso, and Saunders, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Russell, Aiso, and Saunders to the system of Liu since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for navigation within a warehouse; efficiently moving objects to a target position; and improving grasping capabilities. Applying the teachings of Russell, Aiso, and Saunders to the system of Liu would result in a system that operates wherein controlling the mobile robot to grasp the object based, at least in part, on the determined pick trajectory further comprises:
“activating one or more suction cups of the suction-based gripper as the manipulator is advanced along the pick trajectory” in that the image data processed to govern operation of the robot arm (105) of Liu would further govern selective actuation according to a predetermined seal quality of individual suction cups in view of imaging data as per Saunders and in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would operate in view of trajectory data in time series and impedance control as per Aiso; and
“sensing as the force, a seal quality between one or more of the activated one or more suction cups and the object” in that the image data processed to govern operation of the robot arm (105) of Liu would further govern selective actuation according to a predetermined seal quality of individual suction cups in view of imaging data as per Saunders and in that the robot arm (105) of Liu would operate in view of trajectory data in time series and impedance control as per Aiso.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ota (US Pub. No. 2013/0184870) discloses methods and computer-program products for generating grasp patterns for use by a robot. Zevenbergen (US Patent No. 9,205,558) discloses multiple suction cup control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656