DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority of PRO 63/595,017 on 11/1/2023 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant filed an IDS on 11/18/2025. It has been annotated and considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
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, 6-7, 11, 13-14 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 216713140 (hereinafter ‘140) in view of Harada et al. (US 20150258684 hereinafter Harada).
Regarding claim 1, ‘140 teaches a system for manipulating deformable objects, the system comprising:
a baseplate (See at least: Fig. 1 item 3 “lower connecting seat”);
at least one appendage actuation module configured to mount on the baseplate, the at least one appendage actuation module including an appendage of rigid and elongate construction (See at least: Fig. 1 item 9 “paw”), a platform (See at least: Fig. 1 item 6 “paw supporting seat”), and at least one actuation device (See at least: Fig. 1 item 8 “first driving cylinder”),
the at least one actuation device in coupled arrangement with the appendage and the platform to cause the appendage to move in at least three degrees-of-freedom, at least including an axis of linear translation and an axis of rotation, with respect to the baseplate, the at least one appendage actuation module capable of actuating the appendage with sufficient force to manipulate
but fails to explicitly teach at least one appendage actuation module capable of actuating the appendage with sufficient force to manipulate deformable objects along a plurality of degrees of motion, the plurality of degrees of motion at least including three axes of rotation.
However, Harada teaches teach at least one appendage actuation module capable of actuating the appendage with sufficient force to manipulate deformable objects along a plurality of degrees of motion, the plurality of degrees of motion at least including three axes of rotation (See at least: [0110] Note that the arms of the robot 20a may operate in five degrees of freedom (five axes) or less or may operate in seven degrees of freedom (seven axes) or more. The robot 20a performs, with the arm including the gripping section HND1 and the manipulator section MNP1, predetermined work same as the predetermined work of the robot 20 according to the first embodiment. However, the robot 20a may perform the predetermined work using the arm including the gripping section HND2 and the manipulator section MNP2 or may perform the predetermined work using both the arms. Note that the gripping section HND1 is an example of the gripping section. The gripping section HND1 of the robot 20a includes a claw section capable of gripping or pinching the flexible object S.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify ‘140 in view of Harada to teach at least one appendage actuation module capable of actuating the appendage with sufficient force to manipulate deformable objects along a plurality of degrees of motion, the plurality of degrees of motion at least including three axes of rotation so that the appendage will have the degrees of motion needed to pick up a deformable object without damaging it and manipulating it as needed to perform a task. Regarding claim 2, ‘140 teaches wherein the at least one actuation device includes a linear actuation device, a rotation actuation device, a spherical actuation device, another actuation device, or a combination thereof (See at least: Fig. 1 item 8 “first driving cylinder”).
Regarding claim 3, ‘140 teaches wherein the at least one actuation device is not more in number than a number of degrees-of-freedom of movement of the appendage with respect to the baseplate (See at least: Fig. 1 item 8 “first driving cylinder”).
Regarding claim 6, ‘140 teaches wherein at least a portion of the appendage is configured to be detachable (See at least: Fig. 1. Note: The appendage can be dismantled and is considered detachable.).Regarding claim 7, ‘140 teaches wherein the baseplate further includes coupling members, the coupling members configured to mount the baseplate onto a mechanical, robotic, or biological apparatus (See at least: Fig. 1 item 1 “upper connecting seat”).
Regarding claim 11, ‘140 fails to teach the following limitation, but Harada teaches a processor configured to compute a current position of the appendage and an end position of the appendage based on properties detected, to compute operations for the least one actuation device to move the appendage from the current position computed to the end position computed, and to cause the at least one actuation device to move the appendage based on the operations computed (See at least: [0053] The control device 30 controls the robot 20 to perform the predetermined work. More specifically, the control device 30 derives a three-dimensional position and a posture of the flexible object S on the basis of a picked-up image including the flexible object S picked up by the image pickup section 10. The control device 30 generates a control signal based on the derived three-dimensional position and the derived posture of the flexible object S and outputs the generated control signal to the robot 20 to control the robot 20. The control device 30 controls the image pickup section 10 to pick up an image. [0054] The hardware configuration of the control device 30 is explained with reference to FIG. 2. FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an example of the hardware configuration of the control device 30. The control device 30 includes, for example, a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 31, a storing section 32, an input receiving section 33, and a communication section 34. The control device 30 performs communication with the image pickup section 10, the robot 20, and the like via the communication section 34. These components are communicably connected one another via a bus Bus.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify ‘140 in view of Harada to teach a processor configured to compute a current position of the appendage and an end position of the appendage based on properties detected, to compute operations for the least one actuation device to move the appendage from the current position computed to the end position computed, and to cause the at least one actuation device to move the appendage based on the operations computed so that the system can be controlled to pick up deformable objects.
Regarding claim 13 (and similarly 21), ‘140 in view of Harada teaches a method for manipulating deformable objects, the method comprising: causing at least one appendage, mechanically coupled to a baseplate, a platform, and at least one actuation device, to move in at least three degrees-of-freedom, at least including an axis of linear translation and an axis of rotation, with respect to the baseplate; and positioning the at least one appendage to manipulate the deformable object along a plurality of degrees of motion, the plurality of degrees of motion at least including three axes of rotation (Refer at least to claim 1 for reasoning and rationale.).
Regarding claim 14, ‘140 teaches wherein manipulating includes grasping, pinching, rotating, scooping, lifting, or other operations (See at least: The purpose of the utility model is to provide a clamping mechanical hand with four degrees of freedom, it can realize the purpose of flexibly grabbing object, it does not need to adjust the mechanical hand to install the excavator itself pose to finish the grabbing, so as to improve the working efficiency.).
Regarding claim 20, ‘140 teaches positioning concurrently a plurality of appendages to manipulate the deformable object (See at least: Fig. 1; The purpose of the utility model is to provide a clamping mechanical hand with four degrees of freedom, it can realize the purpose of flexibly grabbing object, it does not need to adjust the mechanical hand to install the excavator itself pose to finish the grabbing, so as to improve the working efficiency.).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘140 in view of Harada and further in view of Furrer et al. (US 20200024853 hereinafter Furrer).
Regarding claim 4, modified ‘140 fails to teach the following limitation, but Furrer teaches a spherical joint linkage statically coupled with the platform, wherein the appendage is coupled mechanically with the spherical joint linkage and the at least one actuation device may be configured to cause the appendage to pivot around a point internal to the spherical joint linkage (See at least: Fig. 4 item 592 “spherical joint”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified ‘140 in view of Furrer to teach a spherical joint linkage statically coupled with the platform, wherein the appendage is coupled mechanically with the spherical joint linkage and the at least one actuation device may be configured to cause the appendage to pivot around a point internal to the spherical joint linkage so that the appendage can utilize a spherical joint for rotational motion pick up a deformable object without damaging it and manipulating it as needed to perform a task.
Claims 8-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘140 in view of Harada and further in view of Hinkle (US Patent 10471591).
Regarding claim 8, modified ‘140 fails to teach the following limitation, but Hinkle teaches at least one sensor configured to detect a corresponding property of the at least one appendage during operation (See at least: Col. 12 lines 49-54 via “As another example, robotic system 100 may use one or more position sensors to sense the position of the actuators of the robotic system. For instance, such position sensors may sense states of extension, retraction, positioning, or rotation of the actuators on arms, legs, hands, feet, digits, or end effectors.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified ‘140 in view of Hinkle to teach at least one sensor configured to detect a corresponding property of the at least one appendage during operation so that the sensor can be used to more precisely control actuation of the appendage to pick up a deformable object.
Regarding claim 9, modified ‘140 fails to teach the following limitation, but Hinkle teaches wherein the at least one sensor includes a position sensor configured to detect a position state of the at least one actuation device during operation of the system (See at least: Col. 12 lines 49-54 via “As another example, robotic system 100 may use one or more position sensors to sense the position of the actuators of the robotic system. For instance, such position sensors may sense states of extension, retraction, positioning, or rotation of the actuators on arms, legs, hands, feet, digits, or end effectors.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified ‘140 in view of Hinkle to teach wherein the at least one sensor includes a position sensor configured to detect a position state of the at least one actuation device during operation of the system so that the position sensor can be used to more precisely control actuation of the appendage to pick up a deformable object.
Regarding claim 10, modified ‘140 fails to teach the following limitation, but Hinkle teaches wherein the at least one sensor includes a force-torque sensor, the force-torque sensor configured to couple mechanically with the appendage and to detect a force applied to the appendage (See at least: Col. 21 lines 39-42 via “In some examples, data from the force-torque sensor may be fused with data from one or more non-contact sensors on the gripper.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified ‘140 in view of Hinkle to teach at least one sensor configured to detect a corresponding property of the at least one appendage during operation so that the force-torque sensor can be used to measure the force applied to a deformable object when manipulating it so the deformable object can be manipulated without getting damaged from excess pressure.
Regarding claim 16, modified ‘140 fails to teach the following limitation, but Hinkle teaches sensing properties of the appendage (See at least: Col. 12 lines 49-54 via “As another example, robotic system 100 may use one or more position sensors to sense the position of the actuators of the robotic system. For instance, such position sensors may sense states of extension, retraction, positioning, or rotation of the actuators on arms, legs, hands, feet, digits, or end effectors.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified ‘140 in view of Hinkle to teach sensing properties of the appendage so that a sensor can be used to more precisely control actuation of the appendage to pick up a deformable object.
Regarding claim 17, modified ‘140 fails to teach the following limitation, but Hinkle teaches operating the at least one actuation device based on the properties sensed in a closed feedback loop (See at least: Col. 9 lines 9-15 via “After the gripper is closed around the object, the arm may move the object with a small amount of force to indicate to the actor that the robot is ready to take the object. The amount of force exerted on the object by the gripper may be measured using a force-torque sensor disposed within the gripper. When the amount of exerted force drops off, indicating that the actor has released the object, the robot may proceed to move the object away from the actor.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified ‘140 in view of Hinkle to teach operating the at least one actuation device based on the properties sensed in a closed feedback loop so that a sensor can be used to more precisely control actuation of the appendage to pick up a deformable object and then use feedback data to determine how to proceed with the task.
Claims 12, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘140 in view of Harada and further in view of Teoh (US 20240246240 hereinafter Teoh).
Regarding claim 12, modified ‘140 fails to teach this limitation, but Teoh teaches wherein the deformable object is a food item (See at least: [0008] via “The developed automation typically uses a high-speed robot arm with a gripper that can move
food items from an input conveyor to meal trays.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified ‘140 in view of Teoh to teach wherein the deformable object is a food item so the system can be used in processing food-related tasks without damaging the food.
Regarding claim 15, modified ‘140 fails to teach this limitation, but Teoh teaches concurrently transporting and manipulating the deformable objects (See at least: [0008] via “The developed automation typically uses a high-speed robot arm with a gripper that
can move food items from an input conveyor to meal trays.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified ‘140 in view of Teoh to teach concurrently transporting and manipulating the deformable objects so that they can be moved and positioned in order to complete desired tasks.
Regarding claim 18, modified ‘140 fails to teach this limitation, but Teoh teaches grading the deformable objects based on the properties sensed, wherein grading includes evaluating the size, weight, hardness, or other characteristics of the deformable objects (See at least: [0088] The image 2000 of FIG. 20 presents the results of real-time object detection and pose calculation. Four types of food are piled in separate trays and the food items in the top layer have all been detected and classified according to food type.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified ‘140 in view of Teoh to teach grading the deformable objects based on the properties sensed, wherein grading includes evaluating the size, weight, hardness, or other characteristics of the deformable objects so that they can be identified and manipulated as needed according to their grading.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘140 in view of Harada and further in view of Oleynik (US20190291277 hereinafter Oleynik).
Regarding claim 19, modified ‘140 fails to teach this limitation, but Oleynik teaches wherein positioning the at least one appendage includes computing a position of the at least one appendage based on the properties sensed using an inverse kinematic model for a plurality of actuation devices (See at least: [0761] via “The implemented separation allows for the use of well known and understood real-time inverse kinematic planners for free-space translational and rotational movements in all degrees of freedom, namely 3 translational (XYZ) and 3 rotational (roll, pitch, yaw), adding up to 6 DoFs. Beyond that, we are able to use a separate multi-DoF inverse kinematic planner that addresses the remaining manipulation elements, namely the palm and fingers with their attached tools/utensils and vessels, thereby decoupling the entire inverse kinematic planning into multiple sets of computationally-manageable processes, each capable of providing solutions in real time for each of their respective (sub-)systems. For workspace movements beyond those of the stationary articulation system, namely the articulated arm/hand systems, a separate planner can be used that allows a coarse positioning system, in our case the Cartesian XYZ positioner, to provide an inverse kinematic solution to said system that can re-center the available workspace around that of the arm/hand system (akin to moving the robotic system along rails to reach parts of the workspace that lie outside of the reach of the articulated robot-arm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified ‘140 in view of Oleynik to teach wherein positioning the at least one appendage includes computing a position of the at least one appendage based on the properties sensed using an inverse kinematic model for a plurality of actuation devices so that the appendage can be positioned in a specific position as needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657