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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to an amendment filed December 17th, 2025. By the amendment claims 1-31 are pending with claims 28-31 being added. The Terminal Disclaimer filed December 17th, 2025 has been accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 12 of the specification the paragraph numbering start over from P001 instead of continuing from P0072. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner maintains the interpretation under 35. U.S.C 112f as outlined in the previous Office action. 35 U.S.C 112f states that “such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 15-18, 20-21 26-27 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Graston et al. (US 20230271791), hereafter Graston.
With regards to claim 1, Graston discloses a robotic system (Abstract), comprising: a communication interface (vison and control subsystem 50) configured to receive image data from one or more cameras (62) associated with a source material handling system (conveyor 110); and one or more processors (controller 52) coupled to the communication interface and configured to: determine, based at least in part on the image data, that an item requiring special handling has entered the source material handling system configured to convey the item to a pick location (P0036, L5-9); and in response to determining that the item requiring special handling has entered the source material handling system, cause a plan for moving the item to be updated to change a manner in which the item is moved to a destination location (P022, L14-21).
With regards to claim 2, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Graston further discloses wherein the item requiring special handling corresponds to an item having a weight that exceeds a predefined weight threshold (P0047, L20-27).
With regards to claim 4, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Graston further discloses wherein causing the plan for moving the item to be updated to change a manner in which the item is moved to the destination location comprises determining an updated plan according to which a grasp location is different from an initial plan for moving the item (P0022, L14-22; not grasping is an updated grasp location).
With regards to claim 5, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Graston further discloses wherein causing the plan for moving the item to be updated to change a manner in which the item is moved to the destination location comprises determining an updated plan according to which a manner by which the item is to be grasped is different from an initial plan for moving the item (P0022, L14-22; not grasping versus initially grasping).
With regards to claim 6, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Graston further discloses wherein causing the plan for moving the item to be updated to change a manner in which the item is moved to the destination location comprises determining an updated plan according to which a path or trajectory along which the item is to be moving to the destination location is different from an initial plan for moving the item (P0036, L5-13; picked up by the robot is one path, sent to rejection member is another path).
With regards to claim 15, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Graston further discloses wherein an updated plan for special handling the item comprises moving the item to a rejection path for manual handling (P022, L14-21).
With regards to claim 16, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Graston further discloses wherein an updated plan for special handling the item comprises pushing the item onto a destination material handling system (with 110 via rejection member 140).
With regards to claim 17, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Graston further discloses wherein causing the plan for moving the item to be updated to change a manner in which the item is moved to the destination location comprises: determining an updated plan to implement the special handling of the item in connection with moving the item to the destination location (P0036, L5-13).
With regards to claim 18, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 17 as outlined above. Graston further discloses wherein the special handling comprises one or more of: pushing the item (with 110 via rejection member 140), reorienting the item, knocking the item over, and dragging the item.
With regards to claim 20, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Graston further discloses wherein the item is determined to require special handling based at least in part on one or more of routing data, dimensional data, weight data (P0048), packaging data, deformability data, and fragility data.
With regards to claim 21, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Graston further discloses wherein the item is determined to require special handling based at least in part on a determination that the item matches a particular shape deemed to required special handling (P0036, L13-18).
With regards to claim 26, Graston discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by one or more processors (controllers 52), image data (via vision and control subsystem 50) from one or more cameras (62) associated with a source material handling system (conveyor 110) configured to convey items to a pick location; determining, based at least in part on the image data, that an item requiring special handling has entered the source material handling system (P0036, L5-9); and in response to determining that the item requiring special handling has entered the source material handling system, causing a plan for moving the item to be updated to change a manner in which the item is moved to a destination location (P022, L14-21).
With regards to claim 27, Graston discloses a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions (P0034) for: receiving (via vision and control system 50), by one or more processors (controller 52), sensor data from one or more sensors (cameras 62) associated with a source material handling system (conveyor 110) configured to convey items to a pick location; determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, that an item that is too heavy to be lifted by a robotic arm (robot 130) controlled by the one or more processors has entered the source material handling system (P0010, L14-20); and in response to determining that the item requiring special handling has entered the source material handling system, causing a plan for moving the item to be updated to change a manner in which the item is moved to a destination location (P022, L14-21).
With regards to claim 31, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above Graston further discloses the source material handling system comprises a source conveyor (place conveyor 220); and the non-lifting movement strategy comprises actuating a diversion structure associated with the source conveyor, including at least one of tilting the source conveyor, reversing the source conveyor (P0041, L10-17, or lowering a sidewall of the source conveyor to divert the item to an alternate location for special handling.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 7, 9-11 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graston.
With regards to claims 7 and 9-11, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Graston does not go into specifics of what items constitute special handling. However, Graston discloses that there many reasons for an item to deemed to need special handling (“unconveyable” in Graston; P0023). It would be obvious to a person with ordinary skill in then art before the effective filing date of the invention that an item requiring special handling could be fragile, dangerous materials, explosive or flammable, or needing regulated handling in order to avoid increased costs due to item lost or mis-handling.
With regards to claim 22, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Graston does not directly disclose wherein the item is determined to require special handling based at least in part on a determination that the item has an irregular shape. However, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that an item with an irregular shape would require special handling in order to avoid damaging the item.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graston as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Gealy et al (US 20220072587), hereafter Gealy.
With regards to claim 3, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Graston does not disclose wherein causing the plan for moving the item to be updated to change a manner in which the item is moved to the destination location comprises determining an updated plan according to which a grasp strategy is updated.
However, Gealy discloses a robotic system (111) or sorting items (Abstract) where an appropriate grasp strategy is chosen based on item characteristics (P0099). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to change a grasp strategy based on item characteristics in the manner disclosed by Gealy in the system disclosed by Graston to avoid damaging the items or processing equipment.
Claim(s) 8, 12-14 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graston as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Wagner et al. (US-11205059) hereafter Wagner.
With regards to claim 8, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Graston does not disclose wherein the one or more processors determines that the item is fragile based at least in part on one or more identifiers or labels on the item.
However, Wagner discloses and item sorting system (Abstract), wherein the one or more processors determines that the item is fragile based at least in part on one or more identifiers or labels on the item (Col 10, L20-22, Col. 10, L8-22). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a label on the item to determine if an item is fragile in order to increase system throughput.
With regards to claim 12, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Graston does not disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: identify the item based at least in part on the image data; and determine that the item requires special handling based at least in part on the identifying of the item.
However, Wagner discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: identify the item based at least in part on the image data (Col. 10, L8-17) ; and determine that the item requires special handling based at least in part on the identifying of the item (Col. 10, L20-22). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the identity of an item to determine special handling as disclosed by Wagner in the system disclosed by Graston to increase system throughput.
With regards to claim 13, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. Graston does not disclose wherein determining that item requires special handling based at least in part on the identifying of the item comprises: obtaining an item identifier for the item; and querying a mapping of item identifiers to item characteristics to obtain one or more of characteristics for the item.
However, Wagner discloses wherein determining that item requires special handling based at least in part on the identifying of the item comprises: obtaining an item identifier for the item; and querying a mapping of item identifiers to item characteristics to obtain one or more of characteristics for the item (Col. 10, L20-22). Therefore, the combination of Graston and Wagner discloses this feature.
With regards to claim 14, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Graston does not disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: obtain information on a label of the item based at least in part on the image data; and determine that the item is to be subject to special handling based at least in part on the information on the label.
However, Wagner discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: obtain information on a label of the item based at least in part on the image data (Col 10, L8-17); and determine that the item is to be subject to special handling based at least in part on the information on the label (Col. 10, L20-22). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the label of an item to determine special handling as disclosed by Wagner in the system disclosed by Graston to increase system throughput.
With regards to claim 25, Graston discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Graston does not disclose wherein the item is determined to require special handling based at least in part on a determination that a grasping strength of a robotic arm is less than a threshold grasping strength.
However, Wagner discloses wherein the item is determined to require special handling based at least in part on a determination that a grasping strength of a robotic arm is less than a threshold grasping strength (Col. 25, L2-7). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine special handling by the grasp strength of a robotic arm in order to avoid the item being dropped by the robotic arm.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Graston discloses that “unconveyable” parcels are sent to a rejection member (new path) instead of being picked up by a robot (initial path) which reads on claim 1 (P
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 23-24 and 30-31 are 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.
Claim 19 would be allowable for disclosing “wherein the special handling comprises operating a plurality of robotic arms to move the item in coordination.”
Claim 23 would be allowable for disclosing “wherein the item is determined to require special handling based at least in part on a determination that the item has a particular type of packaging.”
Claim 30 would be allowable for disclosing “the item is determined to require special handling based at least in part on a current utilization of one or more motors driving the source conveyor exceeding a predefined current utilization threshold,
Claim 24 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency.
Claims 28-29 are allowable for disclosing “wherein the item is determined to require special handling based at least in part on a determination that the item has a particular type of packaging.”
The applicant is advised that claim 23 is a duplicate of claim 28 and only one of these claims would be allowable unless claim 24 is rolled up into claim 23.
As outlined above Graston discloses identifying items that require special handling and diverting them There is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art that would render it obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to identify the items requiring special handling by packaging or current utilization. Additionally, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art that would render it obvious to move two different robot arms in order to lift an item requiring special handling.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LYNN BURKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5824. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am to 6:00pm EST.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571)272-7805. 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.
/J.L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653