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 .
Status of the Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the application submitted by the applicant on December 4, 2024.
Claims 1–14 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Michael Anderson.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 4, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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(s) 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(s) is/are:
1. “processing device configured to…” (Claims 1–8, 10)
Generic placeholder: “processing device”
Functional language: “configured to: detect an occurrence of an error of the handling device; determine a process in which the error occurred and a cause of the occurrence of the error; and determine a change of management information of the article due to the error by using a determination result of the process and a determination result of the cause”
Corresponding structure identified in the specification: A computer (90) including a CPU (91), ROM (92), RAM (93), and storage device (94) executing the algorithm described in connection with FIG. 6 and the accompanying description (see paragraphs describing the overall processing flow of FIG. 5, the recovery processing flowchart of FIG. 6, and the hardware configuration of FIG. 9), and equivalents thereof.
2. “inspection unit” (Claims 1, 2, 9)
Generic placeholder: “unit”
Functional language: “inspecting the transferred article” / “the inspecting by the inspection unit”
Corresponding structure identified in the specification: A conveyor (121), a weight sensor (122), and a guide (123), as described in connection with FIG. 1 and the accompanying description. The inspection unit may also include an image sensor with an imaging device that images the article from above and uses template matching to determine correctness. See also the detailed description of the inspection method. Structure includes equivalents thereof.
3. “management device configured to communicate with the processing device” (Claims 10, 11)
Generic placeholder: “management device”
Functional language: “configured to communicate with the processing device” and the functions recited in Claims 10–11 (receiving transfer results, accessing the article database, correcting compatibility information)
Corresponding structure identified in the specification: A computer (90) functioning as a warehouse management system (WMS), including a CPU (91), ROM (92), RAM (93), and storage device (94) (FIG. 9), accessing article database (310) (FIG. 4), executing the algorithms described in connection with FIGS. 3 and 5, and equivalents thereof.
4. “terminal device configured to communicate with the handling robot via a network and configured to remotely operate the handling robot” (Claim 12)
Generic placeholder: “terminal device”
Functional language: “configured to communicate with the handling robot via a network and configured to remotely operate the handling robot”
Corresponding structure identified in the specification: A computer including a monitor, input device (mouse, keyboard, touchpad), communication interface (network card/LAN card), and output interface, displaying the graphical user interfaces (GUIs 500, 600) described in connection with FIGS. 7–8, and executing the remote operation procedures described in steps S6–S7 and S21–S22 of FIG. 6 and the accompanying description, and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites “the cause of the error is related to something before the handling robot gripped the article.” The term “something” renders the claim indefinite because it is a vague and undefined term that does not clearly delineate the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain with reasonable certainty what causes are encompassed by “related to something before the handling robot gripped the article.” While the specification provides examples of errors that occur before gripping (e.g., recognition failures of the first measurement device, failures in generation of the motion plan by the processing device—see the description of step S4 of FIG. 6), the claim language “related to something” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite scope, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “the cause of the error is related to something before the handling robot gripped the article” as —the cause of the error is attributable to an event occurring before the handling robot gripped the article—.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites “the management device corrects the compatibility information for the article that was dropped in the case where the article was dropped by the handling robot.” The limitation “the article that was dropped” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 11 depends from Claim 10, which depends from Claim 9, which depends from Claim 1. None of Claims 1, 9, or 10 recite an article being dropped or any dropping event. The use of the definite article “the” in “the article that was dropped” implies that a dropping event has been previously established in the claim, but no such event has been introduced.
Additionally, the claim is unclear as to whether the dropping is a required step of the claimed system or merely a conditional event. The scope of the claim is therefore ambiguous—it is unclear whether the system must include structural or functional elements that detect or respond to a dropping event, or whether the claim is directed to a system that only operates under this condition.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret Claim 11 as requiring that the management device is configured to correct the compatibility information for an article in the case where the article is dropped by the handling robot during the transferring.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appropriate correction is required.
Recommendation: Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending Claim 14 to recite “A non-transitory storage medium configured to store a program” or equivalent language that explicitly excludes transitory signals.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice/Mayo)
Claims 1–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim(s)
Category
1–8
Machine (processing device)
9–12
Machine (handling system)
13
Process (method)
14
Manufacture (storage medium)*
*Claim 14 is also rejected as encompassing non-statutory transitory signals (see separate rejection above). To the extent Claim 14 is directed to non-transitory media, it falls within the “manufacture” category.
All claims fall within at least one statutory category. The analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
Yes. The independent claims each recite limitations that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes (observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions performable in the human mind or with pen and paper) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental commercial practices—specifically, inventory management).
Independent Claim 1 (representative; Claims 13 and 14 are commensurate in scope):
The claim recites:
(a) “detect an occurrence of an error of the handling device”
This limitation constitutes an observation—a human warehouse supervisor can observe that a handling device has experienced an error (e.g., the robot has stopped, an article was dropped, an inspection failed). This is a mental process.
(b) “determine a process in which the error occurred and a cause of the occurrence of the error”
This limitation constitutes an evaluation and judgment—a human can mentally ascertain which step of the workflow (transfer or inspection) experienced the failure and what caused it (e.g., the article was dropped, software failed, a collision occurred). This is a mental process.
(c) “determine a change of management information of the article due to the error by using a determination result of the process and a determination result of the cause”
This limitation constitutes an opinion/judgment—based on knowing which process failed and why, a human decides whether inventory records need adjustment (e.g., “the article was dropped during transfer, so reduce inventory by one”). This is both a mental process and a method of organizing human activity (inventory management is a fundamental commercial/business practice). See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010).
The specification expressly confirms that these determinations were historically performed by human workers:
“Conventionally, when such an error occurs, the worker confirms the occurrence of a change of the inventory quantity and appropriately corrects the inventory quantity of the article database.”
Independent Claim 9 (system claim):
Claim 9 recites “A handling system, comprising: the processing device according to claim 1; and the handling device.” The judicial exception is imported through the incorporation of the processing device of Claim 1. The handling device (handling robot transferring an article; inspection unit inspecting the transferred article) performs its conventional, intended functions and does not alter the character of the abstract mental processes/organizing human activity performed by the processing device.
Dependent Claims 2–8, 10–12:
Claim
Additional Abstract Limitation
Grouping
2
“determining whether or not the error occurred in one of the transferring…or the inspecting”
Mental process (evaluation/classification)
3
“the management information includes an inventory quantity of the article”
Narrows abstract data type; organizing human activity (inventory tracking)
4
“output a determination result to reduce the inventory quantity…in the case where the error occurs in the inspecting”
Mental judgment + outputting result
5
“output a determination result to reduce the inventory quantity…in the case where…the cause of the error is the article being dropped”
Mental judgment + outputting result
6
“determine whether or not the article is being gripped by the handling robot…output a determination result to reduce the inventory quantity”
Mental observation + judgment + outputting result
7
“output a determination result not to change the inventory quantity…the cause of the error is related to something before the handling robot gripped the article”
Mental judgment
8
“determine a necessity of a remote operation…emit a notification in the case where the remote operation is determined to be necessary”
Mental judgment + notification (extra-solution activity)
10
“transmitting, to the management device: a transfer result…and a determination result of the change of the management information”
Transmitting data (extra-solution activity); organizing human activity (reporting inventory changes)
11
“the management device accesses an article database…corrects the compatibility information for the article that was dropped”
Updating records in a database; organizing human activity (maintaining business records)
12
“a terminal device configured to communicate with the handling robot via a network and configured to remotely operate the handling robot”
Generic computer linked over a network; field-of-use
None of the dependent claims recite limitations that depart from mental processes or organizing human activity; they merely specify particular scenarios, data types, or conditions under which the same abstract judgments are made.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional elements in each claim, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1–8:
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea are:
Additional Element
Analysis
“A processing device”
A generic computing device (spec: CPU 91, ROM 92, RAM 93, storage 94—FIG. 9). Recited at a high level of generality. This amounts to mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using a generic computer. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 224–25; MPEP § 2106.05(f).
“configured to communicate with a handling device”
Receiving/transmitting data over a communication link. This is insignificant pre-solution/extra-solution activity (data gathering). See MPEP § 2106.05(g); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 614 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
“the handling device including a handling robot and an inspection unit, the handling robot transferring an article, the inspection unit inspecting the transferred article”
These elements describe the technological environment and field of use in which the abstract mental processes are applied. The handling robot and inspection unit are not positively controlled or modified by the processing device’s determinations within the scope of Claim 1. The handling device merely provides the context from which error data is received. This is a field-of-use limitation. See MPEP § 2106.05(h); Bilski, 561 U.S. at 612.
“output a determination result” (Claims 4–7) / “emit a notification” (Claim 8)
Outputting data/displaying results. This is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715–16 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The claims do not recite:
An improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology/technical field;
A specific technical mechanism or algorithm that improves the handling robot’s operation (e.g., revised motion planning, sensor fusion, improved gripper control);
Application of the judicial exception by a particular machine that is integral to the claim (the processing device is a generic computer; the handling device is merely the source of data);
Transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
Any other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of warehouse robotics.
Regarding the alleged improvement: The specification describes the benefit as reducing the time a human worker spends confirming inventory quantity changes—“the time that the handling robot 110 is stopped to confirm the inventory can be reduced; and the ratio of utilization of the handling robot can be improved.” This is an improvement to the business/administrative process of inventory reconciliation, not a technological improvement to computer functionality or robot operation. The handling robot and inspection unit function identically regardless of the processing device’s abstract determinations. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (improvement to the information considered by a user is not a technical improvement); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Claims 9–12 (handling system):
Additional Element
Analysis
“the handling device” (Claim 9) – handling robot + inspection unit
The handling device performs its ordinary, intended functions: the robot transfers articles; the inspection unit inspects them. These are conventional warehouse automation components performing their well-known functions. Adding a conventional machine performing its conventional function does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 614–15 (adding a conventional telephone/camera to abstract data organization); Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (conventional devices do not transform abstract claims). The claim does not recite that the processing device’s determinations control or modify the operation of the handling device (e.g., the robot does not change its motion plan, gripper force, or transfer strategy based on the inventory determinations).
“a management device configured to communicate with the processing device” (Claim 10)
Another generic computer performing conventional functions (receiving data, managing records). Mere instructions to apply the exception on another generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
“transmitting…a transfer result…and a determination result” (Claim 10)
Transmitting data over a network. Insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
“the management device accesses an article database…corrects the compatibility information” (Claim 11)
Storing and updating records in a database. This is electronic recordkeeping—a form of organizing human activity itself. It does not provide a technical improvement; it merely records the result of the abstract determination. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (electronic recordkeeping is one of the “well-understood, routine, conventional” computer functions).
“a terminal device configured to communicate with the handling robot via a network and configured to remotely operate the handling robot” (Claim 12)
A generic computer connected via a network. Remote operation of equipment via a networked terminal is conventional. This is a field-of-use/technological environment limitation. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Regarding particular machine (MPEP § 2106.05(b)): Although Claims 9–12 positively recite the handling device, the machine is not “integral” to the claimed invention in the relevant sense. The claimed abstract steps (detecting errors, determining causes, determining inventory changes) could be performed with respect to any machine, robot, or process—the handling robot and inspection unit merely supply data inputs. The handling device does not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea’s execution; the abstract idea is not applied “by” the machine in a manner that transforms the claim. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 604–05 (machine must impose “meaningful limits on the claim’s scope”); see also MPEP § 2106.05(b) (“Merely reciting the use of a generic computer as a tool to implement the recited judicial exception . . . is not sufficient.”). Here, the handling device is analogous to a data source from which information is gathered—it does not meaningfully constrain or transform the abstract determination steps.
Claim 13 (method):
The additional elements are:
Additional Element
Analysis
“communicating with a handling device”
Data gathering/receiving. Insignificant pre-solution activity. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
“the handling device including a handling robot and an inspection unit, the handling robot transferring an article, the inspection unit inspecting the transferred article”
Field-of-use / technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No integration into a practical application.
Claim 14 (storage medium):
The additional elements are:
Additional Element
Analysis
“A storage medium configured to store a program”
Generic computer-readable medium. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
“the program causing a computer to perform the processing method according to claim 13”
Generic computer executing abstract steps. Alice, 573 U.S. at 224–25.
No integration into a practical application.
Step 2B – Do the Claims Recite Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
No. The additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., do not amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception).
Additional Element
WURC Analysis
Generic processing device (computer with CPU, ROM, RAM, storage)
WURC. General-purpose computers performing their basic functions (processing data, executing instructions) are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 224–25; MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Communicating with / receiving data from a handling device
WURC. Receiving or transmitting data over a network or communication link is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321; OIP Techs., Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Handling robot (articulated robot with gripper) transferring articles
WURC. Articulated robotic arms with grippers for transferring articles in warehouse settings are well-known and conventional. See, e.g., Applicant’s own specification acknowledging: “Handling robots that are configured to automatically transfer articles are used in warehouses and the like.” (Background). The Examiner takes Official Notice that articulated picking robots with grippers, force sensors, and acceleration sensors for warehouse automation are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
Inspection unit (conveyor, weight sensor, guide) inspecting articles
WURC. Conveyors with weight sensors for inspecting transferred articles (weight-based verification) are well-known in warehouse automation and logistics. The Examiner takes Official Notice that weight-based inspection systems on conveyors are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
“Output a determination result” / “emit a notification” / “transmitting…a transfer result”
WURC. Outputting/displaying/transmitting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363.
Management device accessing an article database and correcting compatibility information (Claim 11)
WURC. Storing and retrieving information in memory / electronic recordkeeping is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225; MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Terminal device communicating via a network for remote operation (Claim 12)
WURC. Remote operation of equipment via networked terminals is well-known and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (receiving/transmitting data over a network). The Examiner takes Official Notice that remote teleoperation of robots via networked computer terminals is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the robotics and warehouse automation arts.
Storage medium storing a program (Claim 14)
WURC. Generic computer-readable storage media are conventional. See Alice; MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Considered as an ordered combination: The claims recite a generic computer that receives error data from conventional warehouse automation equipment (robot + inspection unit), performs abstract mental determinations (error detection, cause analysis, inventory change decision), and outputs the results. This ordered combination does not add anything that is not conventional when each element is considered separately. The combination is merely “apply it on a computer in a warehouse robotics environment”—the same conventional components performing their conventional functions, with the human mental process of inventory reconciliation automated on the generic computer. This does not transform the claim into something “significantly more.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (“if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility”) (citation omitted).
Conclusion
Claims 1–14 are directed to the abstract idea of detecting an error in a handling process, determining the process and cause of the error, and determining whether inventory management information should change—mental processes and methods of organizing human activity—implemented on a generic computer in a warehouse robotics environment, without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, Claims 1–14 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 6, 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0394364) in view of Chavez (KR Pub. No. 2021-0135528) in further view of Takizawa (CN Pub. No. 108462871) and Saboo (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0129592).
Regarding Claim 1:
Ogawa discloses a processing device configured to communicate with a handling device, the handling device including a handling robot and an inspection unit, the handling robot transferring an article, the inspection unit inspecting the transferred article (Ogawa, FIG. 1, [0041]-[0045]: management system 30 (processing device) communicates with and controls conveyance system 20 and robot 21 (handling device); FIG. 3, [0055]-[0058]: robot 21/shipment robot 87 (handling robot) includes manipulator 412 with arm 431 and end effector 432 that removes target article 14 from an article container and puts it into a pickup container, thereby transferring the article (see also [0187], [0209]); [0062]-[0067]: robot 21 includes sensor group comprising article container weight scale 452, pickup container weight scale 454, handling sensor 456, article container sensor 451, and pickup container sensor 453, which detect the state and weight of articles during and after transfer; see also [0190]-[0201] describing the inspection process in the receiving system 83 where inspection robot 91 performs inspection of received articles).
However, Ogawa does not expressly disclose an inspection unit that inspects the article after transfer to verify the correctness of the transfer (e.g., verifying correct type and quantity). Chavez teaches a robotic handling system in which the control computer, after the item is gripped/transferred, performs sensor-based inspection including: querying a database for item weight, checking pressure sensor readings for air leaks weakening grip force, checking force sensor readings “to ensure that the correct type and quantity of items are being gripped,” using a camera to detect the position of gripped items relative to the end effector, and verifying that the size of the gripped item matches the SKU/item database (Chavez, Process 800, steps 802-814; description of post-grip sensor verification).
Ogawa discloses the processing device being configured to detect an occurrence of an error of the handling device (Ogawa, FIG. 8, [0085]: error detecting module 479 detects an error based on a state of the robot 21, an implementation state of the work plan, a drive control state, grasping of the target article 14, and the observation result such as a transportation state; [0116]: “The robot 21 may sometimes be unable to handle due to occurrence of some error”; [0153] at step S20: management system 30 determines whether the process for the target article 14 by the robot 21 is successful; [0211] at step S63: “if the shipment robot 87 has failed to remove the target article 14”).
Ogawa discloses determine a process in which the error occurred (Ogawa, [0190]-[0201]: the handling system includes a distinct inspection/receiving process (S51-S52) performed by inspection robot 91; [0209]-[0211]: a separate shipping/transfer process (S61-S63) performed by shipment robot 87; each process has separate error handling — when the robot fails at the transfer process (S20/S41/S63), the management system identifies the failure occurred in the transfer process and routes the article to the operator for recovery (S21-S22, S42-S43); see also Takizawa, robot action determining part 36: determines whether the conveying/holding action was properly performed and identifies the abnormality occurrence time, i.e., the process/point at which the error occurred).
Ogawa does not expressly disclose determine… a cause of the occurrence of the error. Takizawa teaches an abnormality cause estimation system for a production system comprising a robot, a camera, and a control device, including: an abnormality cause estimation unit 37 that estimates, from among 17 predefined abnormal-reason items, the probability that each item is the cause of the abnormality. The 17 items include: vibration (item 1), camera temperature (item 2), peripheral device temperature (item 3), brightness (item 4), date/time (item 5), weather (item 6), ceiling lighting state (item 7), air conditioner setting (item 8), workpiece type (item 9), peripheral device action state (item 10), synchronization signals (item 11), power supply voltage (item 12), device warnings (item 13), camera fault/lens dirty (item 14), image processing unit fault (item 15), cable fault/disconnection/noise (item 16), and robot fault including “falling locating precision of robot” and “synchronization disorders” (item 17). The estimation uses a neural network trained on environment information, image processing information, and action result information as inputs (Takizawa, Claims 1-7; description of abnormity reason estimating part 37).
Ogawa discloses determine a change of management information of the article due to the error by using a determination result of the process and a determination result of the cause (Ogawa, [0042]: high-level system 34 is “a warehouse management system, an inventory management system, and a transportation management system”; [0175]-[0176]: management system 30 updates the process information based on the content and result of the process — when the number of processing failures exceeds a given number, the management system deletes the robot from the robot list or changes the handling method to Unknown; [0235]: when the shipment robot 87 makes a mistake of putting target articles more than the specified number into a pickup container, the management system 30 receives notice and instructs correction of the quantity).
However, Ogawa does not expressly disclose determining the change of management information by using both the determination result of the process AND the determination result of the cause in combination. Saboo teaches a control system managing a fleet of robotic devices in a warehouse environment that determines and adjusts management information in the form of inventory based on the handling outcome and cause — specifically: the system “may increase a predicted future inventory of the particular product on the truck by one and may decrease a predicted future inventory of the particular product in the warehouse storage by one” based on task progress data (Saboo, [0095]); “based on a performance of a task where twenty products of the particular type are being loaded onto a truck that will leave the particular warehouse, the control system may reduce the total number of the predicted inventory by twenty” (Saboo, [0118]); the system tracks objects that are “dropped in a location and lost” (i.e., identifying the cause as a drop event) to update the object map/inventory (Saboo, [0025], [0045], [0122]-[0123]; Claims 21-22: “modifying the predicted future inventory… to reflect changes to a number of objects”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handling system of Ogawa to incorporate: (i) the post-transfer inspection of Chavez, in order to verify that the correct type and quantity of articles have been successfully transferred, thereby reducing fulfillment errors; (ii) the cause determination of Takizawa, in order to accurately diagnose why a handling error occurred from among multiple predefined causes, enabling targeted recovery and preventing recurrence; and (iii) the cause-based inventory adjustment of Saboo, in order to maintain accurate inventory records by updating management information based on both the process outcome and the identified cause. All references are directed to robotic article-handling systems, and the combination represents applying known error-diagnosis and inventory-management techniques to a known robotic handling system to yield predictable improvements in accuracy and reliability. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143(A), (D).
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Ogawa, Chavez, Takizawa, and Saboo teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. The combination further teaches wherein the determination of the process includes determining whether or not the error occurred in one of the transferring by the handling robot or the inspecting by the inspection unit (Ogawa, [0153]-[0156], [0171]-[0174]: management system 30 determines at step S20/S41 whether the robot 21 was successful in the transfer/handling process and proceeds to recovery at S21-S22/S42-S43; separately, [0190]-[0201] describes the inspection process in the receiving system with its own error-handling path; the system inherently identifies which process failed because the failure occurs at distinct process stages; Chavez further teaches distinguishing an error during gripping/transfer (Process 700-800: grip verification) from an error at placement/inspection (Process 1300, steps 1302-1310: detecting misplacement by comparing measured height to expected value after placement); Takizawa teaches determining, from the robot action result (whether the conveying/holding action was properly performed), at what point the abnormality occurred (robot action determining part 36; abnormality occurrence time determination unit)).
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Ogawa, Chavez, Takizawa, and Saboo teaches all limitations of Claim 2 as set forth above. The combination further teaches wherein the management information includes an inventory quantity of the article (Ogawa, [0042]: high-level system 34 is “an inventory management system”; [0131]: “The kind of article 12 may be a stock keeping unit (SKU) which is a unit of inventory management”; [0235]: the system tracks and corrects the quantity of target articles when the shipping robot puts more articles than specified into a container; Saboo, [0095], [0118], Claim 21: the management information expressly comprises inventory quantity that is “increase[d]… by one” or “reduce[d]… by twenty” to reflect changes in the number of objects of a particular product type at a particular warehouse).
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Ogawa, Chavez, Takizawa, and Saboo teaches all limitations of Claim 3 as set forth above. The combination further teaches output a determination result to reduce the inventory quantity of the article in the case where the error occurs in the inspecting by the inspection unit (Ogawa, [0235]: when an error is detected during the quantity verification step (the robot puts more than the specified number), the management system instructs correction — i.e., reducing the count in the pickup container; Chavez, Process 1300, steps 1302-1310: at the inspection/placement stage, if an error is detected (wrong item, deformed item, item placed on top of another item), the item is returned to its source location or buffer, triggering correction of the article record; Saboo, [0118]: “the control system may reduce the total number of the predicted inventory”; [0122]: tracking lost/dropped objects and updating inventory). It would have been obvious to output a result to reduce inventory quantity when an inspection-stage error reveals that an article is damaged, lost, or otherwise unaccounted for, in order to maintain accurate inventory records.
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Ogawa, Chavez, Takizawa, and Saboo teaches all limitations of Claim 3 as set forth above. The combination further teaches determine whether or not the article is being gripped by the handling robot in the case where the error occurred in the transferring by the handling robot (Ogawa, FIG. 4, [0068]-[0069]: force sensor 461 is provided on the end effector and the robot controller 413 controls operations based on signals from force sensor 461; [0066]: handling sensor 456 detects the state of the target article 14 while the end effector 432 is handling it; [0085]: error detecting module 479 detects errors based on “grasping of the target article 14” using force sensor values passed through a lowpass filter; Chavez, Process 700, step 708: the system determines whether the item has been successfully gripped using pressure sensors to detect vacuum achievement, force sensors to verify force, and weight verification; FIG. 9: end effector 900 includes force sensors 918-928 and pressure monitoring of suction cups 910, 912).
The combination further teaches output a determination result to reduce the inventory quantity of the article in the case where it is determined that the article is being gripped by the handling robot (Saboo, [0095], [0118]: adjusting inventory based on handling outcome — when articles are confirmed in transit/gripped and then lost or displaced, inventory is decremented; [0045]: tracking dropped/lost objects to update inventory). It would have been obvious to reduce inventory when a transfer error occurs while the article is confirmed to be gripped, because the article has been physically displaced from its source location and may be damaged or lost (e.g., dropped after being gripped), and the inventory must reflect the physical reality.
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Ogawa, Chavez, Takizawa, and Saboo teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. The combination further teaches determine a necessity of a remote operation of the handling robot in the case where the error occurred in the transferring by the handling robot (Ogawa, [0116]-[0117]: when the robot 21 is stopped due to an error during handling/transfer, management system 30 determines that operator intervention is needed and transmits an instruction for recovery to the terminal device 22 held by the worker; Chavez, Process 500 step 514, Process 800 step 812: if the controlling computer is unable to proceed in fully automated mode — i.e., a grasping/moving/placing strategy fails — the control computer determines that human intervention is necessary and activates the remote manipulation device 124 for the human user 126 to intervene).
The combination further teaches emit a notification in the case where the remote operation is determined to be necessary (Ogawa, [0117]: “the management system 30 transmits an instruction for recovery to the terminal device 22 held by the operator 23”; [0156]: management system gives instruction to terminal device 22 to perform recovery process; Chavez: the system “prompts the human user 126 to intervene” using a signal/display on the remote control device 124).
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Ogawa, Chavez, Takizawa, and Saboo teaches a handling system, comprising: the processing device according to claim 1; and the handling device (Ogawa, FIG. 1, [0035]-[0036]: the handling system 10 comprises management system 30 (the processing device of claim 1), conveyance system 20, robot 21, and terminal devices 22 (the handling device including the handling robot and inspection unit); see the rejection of Claim 1 for the complete mapping of all limitations of the processing device).
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Ogawa, Chavez, Takizawa, and Saboo teaches all limitations of Claim 9 as set forth above. The combination further teaches a management device configured to communicate with the processing device (Ogawa, [0042]: high-level system 34 (management device) is “a warehouse management system, an inventory management system, and a transportation management system” that is communicatively coupled to management system 30 (processing device); [0054]: SoS-API module 326 provides an interface for connecting to the high-level system 34; the management system 30 “exchanges information with the high-level system 34 and performs information processing in cooperation with the high-level system 34” per [0041]).
The combination further teaches the processing device transmitting, to the management device: a transfer result indicating a success or a failure of the transferring of the article (Ogawa, [0175]: “the management system 30 receives the content and the result of the process transmitted from the robot 21 and updates the track record information included in the process information”; [0210]: “the management system 30 receives the process content and the process result from the shipment robot 87 or the shipment terminal device 88 and updates the process information”; the track record information includes “the number of processing successes, and the number of processing failures” per [0138], which is communicated to the high-level system 34 as needed per [0041]-[0042]).
The combination further teaches a determination result of the change of the management information of the article (Ogawa, [0175]-[0176]: management system updates process information and changes the handling method/robot list based on success/failure results; these updates are coordinated with high-level system 34 (the inventory/warehouse management system) per [0041]-[0042]; Saboo, [0095], [0118]: the control system transmits inventory adjustments — increasing or decreasing predicted future inventory — based on task progress data received from robotic devices, which constitutes transmitting a determination result of the change of management information to the inventory system).
Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Ogawa, Chavez, Takizawa, and Saboo teaches all limitations of Claim 10 as set forth above. The combination further teaches wherein the management device accesses an article database including compatibility information for each article, the compatibility information indicating compatibility with the transferring by the handling robot (Ogawa, FIG. 14, [0129]-[0139]: management system 30 manages a database including, for each article type, process information comprising a “handling method” (indicating whether the article is to be processed by the robot or operator), a “robot list” (indicating which robots can process the article, grasping method, speed, and grasping force), and “track record information” (number of successes and failures) — these collectively constitute compatibility information indicating compatibility with the transferring by the handling robot; see also [0089]: article database stores “information on characteristics at the time of grasping” such as “being soft, fragile, or deformable”).
The combination further teaches the management device corrects the compatibility information for the article that was dropped in the case where the article was dropped by the handling robot (Ogawa, [0176]: “when robot 21 is entered as the handling method but the number of processing failures is a given number or more, the management system 30 deletes the corresponding robot 21 from the robot list or changes the handling method to Unknown” — this constitutes correcting compatibility information when the robot has failed to handle articles (including dropping); the compatibility information is updated to reflect that the robot is no longer considered compatible with that article type. Takizawa item 17 teaches identifying “falling” as a robot-related cause. The combination renders obvious correcting the compatibility information specifically when the cause is determined to be a drop, since Ogawa already corrects compatibility on repeated failures and Takizawa identifies the cause as dropping.).
Regarding Claim 12:
The combination of Ogawa, Chavez, Takizawa, and Saboo teaches all limitations of Claim 11 as set forth above. The combination further teaches a terminal device configured to communicate with the handling robot via a network and configured to remotely operate the handling robot (Ogawa, [0040]: “Each of one or more terminal devices 22 is held by an operator 23”; [0117]: “the management system 30 transmits an instruction for recovery to the terminal device 22 held by the operator 23 working in the vicinity of the robot 21 stopped due to an error. The operator 23 thus can check the state of the stopped robot 21 and, for example, restart the robot 21”; the terminal device 22 communicates with the robot via management system 30 over the network to provide recovery instructions, constituting remote operation; Chavez, FIG. 1-2: remote control device 124 communicates with the robotic arm 102 via the control computer 122 over a wireless network, and human user 126 remotely operates the robotic arm to grip, move, and position items via the remote manipulation device).
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 is a method claim reciting steps that correspond to the functions performed by the processing device of Claim 1. Ogawa, Chavez, Takizawa, and Saboo teach all limitations as mapped in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Specifically, the combination teaches a processing method, comprising: communicating with a handling device, the handling device including a handling robot and an inspection unit, the handling robot transferring an article, the inspection unit inspecting the transferred article (Ogawa, [0041]-[0045]: management system 30 communicates with robot 21 and conveyance system 20; [0055]-[0058], [0187], [0209]: robot 21/shipment robot 87 transfers target article 14; [0062]-[0067], [0190]-[0201]: sensor group and inspection robot 91 inspect articles; Chavez, Process 800: post-transfer verification of type and quantity).
The combination teaches detecting an occurrence of an error of the handling device (Ogawa, [0085], [0116], [0153], [0211]: error detecting module 479 and steps S20/S41/S63 detect handling failures).
The combination teaches determining a process in which the error occurred and a cause of the occurrence of the error (Ogawa, [0153]-[0156], [0190]-[0211]: identifying the process (transfer vs. inspection) in which failure occurred; Takizawa, Claims 1-7, abnormity reason estimating part 37: estimating the cause from among 17 predefined items including robot fault/dropping (item 17), cable/software fault (items 15-16), and environmental causes (items 1-13)).
The combination teaches determining a change of management information of the article due to the error by using a determination result of the process and a determination result of the cause (Ogawa, [0042], [0175]-[0176], [0235]: updating inventory/process information based on handling results; Saboo, [0095], [0118], [0045], Claims 21-22: adjusting predicted future inventory based on handling outcome including articles dropped/lost).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14:
The combination of Ogawa, Chavez, Takizawa, and Saboo teaches all limitations of Claim 13 as set forth above. The combination further teaches a storage medium configured to store a program, the program causing a computer to perform the processing method according to claim 13 (Ogawa, [0076]: “The robot controller 413 includes a processor and a memory to execute a computer program. The robot controller 413 thus can implement the functions as illustrated in FIG. 8”; additionally, management system 30 is described as “an information processing device such as a computer” ([0041]) that executes programs to perform the disclosed methods; Saboo, [0065]: “The program code may be stored on any type of computer readable medium… The computer readable medium may include a non-transitory computer readable medium… such as secondary or persistent long term storage, like read only memory (ROM), optical or magnetic disks, compact-disc read only memory (CD-ROM)”). It would have been obvious to store the processing method on a non-transitory storage medium because computer-implemented methods are routinely stored on such media for execution by processors, as evidenced by both Ogawa and Saboo.
Examiner Notes
The Examiner notes that Claims 5 and 7 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 even though RoboTire (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0114408) reads on the claims it would be taking obvious elements and using he claims as a roadmap to reject the claims.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
RoboTire (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0114408) is pertinent because it uses automated vehicle wheel removal and replacement are provided. One system includes a computer system with applications for scheduling the replacement of tires for the vehicle. An electronically controlled lift device and robotic apparatus is configured for interaction with the computer system. The lift device mechanically adjusts arms for placement on lift points of vehicles. The robotic apparatus detects positioning of lug nut configuration for a wheel, removes lug nuts, and then removes the wheel from the wheel hub with gripping arms. The wheel and tire are then handed off to a separate tire changing machine. When a new tire is replaced the robotic apparatus then mounts the wheel to the original wheel hub, and then secures the lug nuts to the lug nut bolts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-4pm.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
Mike Anderson
Supervisor Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3693
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights