DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final, first office action on the merits in response to applicant’s communication filed on 1/21/2025, wherein claims 1-11 are currently pending.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based upon an application filed in China. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202410181774.2, filed on 2/18/2024 (effective filing date).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/22/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to for inconsistent nomenclature for element 30, referred to variously as "end effector" and "end executor," including in the List of Reference Numerals. Consistent use of the claim term is required. Appropriate correction is required. No new matter may be added.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
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:
"height adjustment assembly" in claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9;
"displacement assembly" in claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10;
"supporting part" in claims 3 and 5;
"moving part" in claim 3; and
"angle adjustment assembly" in claim 5.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 112(f) limitation:
"height adjustment assembly": supporting part 41 in the form of two parallel guide rails, and moving part 42 in the form of a sliding seat slidably connected to the guide rails and engaging vertical lead screw 43 driven by lead screw motor 44 under lead screw controller 45. Alternative driving apparatuses disclosed for moving the moving part include an electric cylinder, a hydraulic system, a pneumatic system, and a linear motor. See Applicant's specification, Pars. [0069] to [0072];
"displacement assembly": a multi-joint operating arm, in one embodiment a seven-joint arm, driven by a hydraulic cylinder or a servo motor, with a transmission formed of a connecting rod, curved arm, gear, rack, conveyor belt, driving wheel, sliding block and/or sliding rail. See Applicant's specification, Pars. [0062], [0066] to [0068];
"supporting part": two parallel guide rails disposed on the movable platform. See Applicant's specification, Par. [0072];
"moving part": a sliding seat having a screw hole, slidably connected to the two guide rails and rotatably connected to vertical lead screw 43 driven by lead screw motor 44. See Applicant's specification, Par. [0072]; and
"angle adjustment assembly": a pan-tilt structure comprising pan-tilt control unit 61, head rotating component 62, connecting flange 63 and head pitching component 64. Disclosed alternatives include a stepper motor, a rotary joint, and a connecting rod. See Applicant's specification, Pars. [0078] to [0079].
Claims 2 through 11 directly or indirectly incorporate claim 1 and therefore incorporate the above limitations as construed. Recitation of further structure in a dependent claim, for example the supporting part and moving part of claim 3, or the multi-joint operating arm of claim 2, narrows the inherited limitation but does not remove it from 112(f) treatment. See Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galluzzo et al. (US 2015/0332213 A1), hereinafter “Galluzzo.”
Regarding Claim 1, Galluzzo discloses:
a mobile operating robot (manipulation robot 600, FIG. 6, Par. [0086]), comprising:
a movable platform (See FIG. 6, wheeled mobile base 660);
a height adjustment assembly disposed on the movable platform (See FIG. 6, the vertical track where the proximal end of tote transport platform 640 is connected to the mobile base and moveable along a vertical track on the mobile base, Par. [0029]);
a displacement assembly comprising a fixed end and a free end, wherein the fixed end is coupled to the height adjustment assembly to move with the height adjustment assembly, and the free end is capable of performing spatial displacement relative to the fixed end (See FIG. 6, articulated manipulator arm 620 mounted to tote transport platform 640 at a position distal from mobile base 660, the opposite end of the arm carrying end effector 675; vertical motion of platform 640 along the track carries the arm with it, extending the vertical reach of the arm); and
an end effector coupled to the free end of the displacement assembly for performing a predetermined operation (See FIG. 6, Pars. [0091-0092], end effector 675 on manipulator arm 620, used to grasp tote 650 from a storage rack and transfer it to tote transport platform 640; extension tool 670 positions end effector 675 at depth within the rack).
Regarding Claim 2, Galluzzo discloses:
The mobile operating robot of claim 1, as set forth above.
Galluzzo further discloses:
wherein the displacement assembly comprises: a multi-joint operating arm comprising two opposite ends, an end of the multi-joint operating arm is the fixed end, and the other end of the multi-joint operating arm is the free end (See FIG. 6, articulated manipulator arm 620 mounted at one end to the distal end portion of tote transport platform 640 and carrying end effector 675 at its opposite end).
Regarding Claim 3, Galluzzo discloses:
The mobile operating robot of claim 1, as set forth above.
Galluzzo further discloses:
a supporting part disposed on the movable platform (See FIG. 6: the vertical track provided on mobile base 660, Pars. [0029], [0090]); and
a moving part supported by the supporting part and coupled to the fixed end of the displacement assembly, wherein the moving part is capable of moving up and down relative to the supporting part to adjust a relative height between the displacement assembly and the movable platform (See FIG. 6, tote transport platform 640, whose proximal end is connected to the mobile base and moveable along the vertical track, and whose distal end portion carries articulated manipulator arm 620, whereby vertical motion of platform 640 extends the vertical reach of the arm, Pars. [0029], [0090]).
Galluzzo's vertical track is equivalent to the two parallel guide rails disclosed by Applicant as the corresponding structure for the supporting part, and platform 640 is equivalent to the disclosed sliding seat, for the reasons set forth as to claim 1. See MPEP 2183.
Regarding Claim 10, Galluzzo discloses:
The mobile operating robot of claim 1, as set forth above.
Galluzzo further discloses:
wherein the end effector is detachably connected to the free end of the displacement assembly (See FIG. 6, end effector 675 on manipulator arm 620. In the discussion of robot 600, Galluzzo states that the robots may comprise an end effector swap mechanism configured to permit a change of the end effector, thereby disclosing that end effector 675 is removably connected to manipulator arm 620) (“The end effector may be a gripper, a suction cup, an electroadhesion end effector, a magnetic end effector, or combinations thereof, and the robots may comprise an end effector swap mechanism configured to permit a change of the end effector,” Par. [0024]).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Galluzzo et al. (US 2015/0332213 A1), hereinafter “Galluzzo.”
Regarding Claim 11, Galluzzo discloses:
The mobile operating robot of claim 1, as set forth above.
However, Galluzzo does not appear to explicitly disclose on robot 600 wherein the movable platform comprises a two-wheel differential chassis.
Although, Galluzzo does disclose in the FIG. 6 embodiment, a wheeled mobile base 660 without specifying its drive architecture.
However, Galluzzo does disclose, in its robot 100 embodiment of FIGS. 1A-1B, a mobile base 160 having two main drive wheels 167 each driven by a servo motor, each drive wheel having an encoder providing motion feedback used to precisely control the speed of each wheel in order to achieve the desired rotation and translation velocities of the robot, together with passive casters 165 for stability and weight distribution. Independent speed control of two drive wheels to produce both translation and rotation is differential drive (“The mobile base may have two main drive wheels 167, each driven by a servo motor. Each drive wheel 167 may have an encoder that provides motion feedback, which can be used to precisely control the speed of each wheel in order to achieve the desired rotation and translation velocities of the robot 100,” Par. [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement wheeled mobile base 660 of robot 600 using the two-servo-driven-drive-wheel-plus-caster architecture Galluzzo discloses for its own robot 100, in order to obtain the precise rotation and translation control and the odometry Galluzzo attributes to that architecture in a robot that must position itself accurately in front of a storage rack. This is the use of a known technique disclosed by the same reference to improve a similar device in the same way. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(C).
As so modified, Galluzzo's movable platform comprises a two-wheel differential chassis.
Claim 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Galluzzo (US 2015/0332213 A1) in view of Edsinger et al. (US 2021/0170583 A1), hereinafter “Edsinger.”
Regarding Claim 4, Galluzzo discloses:
The mobile operating robot of claim 3, as set forth above.
However, Galluzzo does not appear to disclose a camera assembly coupled to at least one of the movable platform and the height adjustment assembly.
Although, Galluzzo does disclose sensors on robot 600, at least one such sensor is centrally located on manipulator arm 620 so that rotation of the arm directs it toward the tote to be picked, that is, on the displacement assembly rather than on the movable platform or the height adjustment assembly.
In the same field of endeavor, Edsinger discloses:
a mobile operating robot (mobile manipulation system 100, FIG. 1) comprising:
a movable platform (mobile base assembly 105, FIG. 1, having first drive wheel 205 and second drive wheel 215, FIG. 2);
a height adjustment assembly disposed on the movable platform (mast 115 attached to mobile base assembly 105, together with lift carriage 705 that translates vertically along mast 115, FIGS. 1 and 7);
a supporting part disposed on the movable platform (mast 115, FIG. 1);
a moving part supported by the supporting part and coupled to the fixed end of the displacement assembly (lift carriage 705 coupled to actuator 605 via lift carriage drive element 710, FIG. 7);
a displacement assembly comprising a fixed end and a free end (telescopic structure 365 having proximal end 375 and distal segment 360, FIG. 3);
an end effector coupled to the free end of the displacement assembly (manipulation payload 405 coupled to distal segment 360, FIG. 4); and
a camera assembly coupled to at least one of the movable platform and the height adjustment assembly (sensor 1505 carried by support structure 1520 within head assembly 120, which is mounted atop mast 115, FIG. 15; Edsinger identifies sensor 1505 as including a camera among the enumerated alternatives, and the examiner elects the camera alternative).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Galluzzo's manipulation robot 600 to include the camera assembly of Edsinger, mounted at the upper end of the vertical track structure carried on mobile base 660, in order to obtain a view of the environment and of the object being manipulated from an elevated vantage that is not carried on, and therefore not swept and reoriented by, the manipulator arm itself. Edsinger positions its camera in an elevated head assembly atop the same vertical structure that carries the arm, for navigation, obstacle avoidance, and a downward view during object manipulation, which are functions Galluzzo's robot must likewise perform. Because Edsinger mounts its camera on the same class of structure that Galluzzo already provides, namely a vertical member rising from a wheeled mobile base and carrying the manipulator, the modification is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143(C), (D). One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as both references already carry imaging sensors on the same class of platform and mounting a camera at the upper end of a vertical support requires no change to the lift or the arm.
Regarding Claim 5, Galluzzo in view of Edsinger discloses:
The mobile operating robot of claim 4, as set forth above.
However, Galluzzo does not appear to disclose an angle adjustment assembly disposed at a top of the supporting part and coupled to the camera assembly, wherein the angle adjustment assembly is configured to adjust at least one of a horizontal view angle and a pitching view angle of the camera assembly.
In the same field of endeavor, Edsinger discloses:
an angle adjustment assembly disposed at a top of the supporting part and coupled to the camera assembly, wherein the angle adjustment assembly is configured to adjust at least one of a horizontal view angle and a pitching view angle of the camera assembly (See FIG. 16, actuator 1605 and actuator 1610 within head assembly 120 mounted atop mast 115, acting on support structure 1520 which carries sensor 1505; Edsinger describes actuator 1605 as rotating the support structure and sensor in a horizontal panning motion "H" and actuator 1610 as moving the sensor in a vertical tilting motion "V". As further shown in FIG. 16, head assembly 120 can include additional peripheral devices or sensors 1635 and 1640 included in the collection of peripheral devices 1510, which in some embodiments can include a 3D depth camera, a red green blue (RGB) camera, a Lidar sensor, a microphone array, or a speaker, Pars. [0090] to [0092]).
Applicant's corresponding structure for the angle adjustment assembly is a pan-tilt structure comprising a head rotating component and a head pitching component acting through a connecting flange. Edsinger's actuator 1605 and actuator 1610, acting on support structure 1520, perform the identical function of changing the camera's horizontal and pitch orientation, in substantially the same way, namely one rotary actuator per axis driving the camera support, and with substantially the same result. Edsinger's structure is therefore an equivalent under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). See MPEP 2183.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the camera assembly of the combination with the pan and tilt actuators of Edsinger at the top of the vertical supporting structure, in order to redirect the camera's field of view toward the storage rack, the manipulator, or the travel path without repositioning the entire robot or the manipulator arm. This is the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See KSR; MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Galluzzo (US 2015/0332213 A1) in view of Hart et al. (US 2021/0171294 A1), hereinafter “Hart.”
Regarding Claim 9, Galluzzo discloses:
The mobile operating robot of claim 1, as set forth above.
However, Galluzzo does not appear to disclose wherein the fixed end of the displacement assembly is detachably connected to the height adjustment assembly.
Although, Galluzzo does disclose detachable interfaces elsewhere on the same robot — the end effector swap mechanism permitting a change of end effector 675, and extension tool 670 described as a replaceable or switchable part of the manipulator arm — however, those interfaces are at the working end of the arm rather than at its mounting to the platform.
In the same field of endeavor, Hart discloses:
a robotic arm system (system 10, FIG. 1) for a mobile operating robot comprising:
a movable platform (operating platform 14 including autonomous mobile base 16, FIG. 1);
a displacement assembly comprising a fixed end and a free end (robotic arm subsystem 26 comprising arm base assembly 28, shoulder joint assembly 30, upper arm assembly 32, elbow joint assembly 34, lower arm assembly 36 and wrist joint assembly 38, FIG. 1);
an end effector coupled to the free end of the displacement assembly (gripper assembly 40, FIG. 1); and
wherein the fixed end of the displacement assembly is detachably connected to the assembly (a mounting subsystem 12 that releasably engages operating platform 14 (See FIG. 1), the operating platform including autonomous mobile base 16, wherein mounting subsystem 12 releasably engages operating platform 14 through assemblies 24 comprising releasable fasteners, releasable clamps, or releasable grasping assemblies); (a robotic arm subsystem 26 coupled to mounting subsystem 12, comprising arm base assembly 28, shoulder joint assembly 30, upper arm assembly 32, elbow joint assembly 34, lower arm assembly 36, wrist joint assembly 38 and gripper assembly 40 (See FIG. 1), such that the entire arm is attached to and detached from the platform as a single unit).
Hart is relied upon for the releasable mounting technique. Hart does not include a vertical lift, and is not asserted to disclose a releasable connection between an arm and a lift carriage. In the proposed combination, mounting subsystem 12 with releasable assemblies 24 would be interposed between the proximal mounting end of Galluzzo's arm 620 and the distal end portion of tote transport platform 640, so that arm 620 is releasably carried by the vertically translating platform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the interface between Galluzzo's manipulator arm 620 and tote transport platform 640 as the releasable mounting arrangement taught by Hart, in order to permit the manipulator to be removed for service or replaced with an arm of different reach or end tooling without dismantling the vertically movable platform and its lift train. This is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement, yielding the predictable result of a modular arm-support interface. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(C), (D). Reasonable expectation of success is established because Black-I's mounting subsystem 12 is a rigid compact base plate carrying the entire arm assembly, and Hart's platform 640 already presents a rigid mounting surface at its distal end portion for that purpose.
As so modified, the fixed end of Galluzzo's displacement assembly is detachably connected to the height adjustment assembly.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Galluzzo et al. (US 2015/0332213 A1) in view of Augenbraun et al. (US 11,407,118 B1).
Regarding Claim 6, Galluzzo discloses:
The mobile operating robot of claim 3, as set forth above, as well as a housing sleeved (main body case 615) on an outer side of the height adjustment assembly (See FIG. 6 and the vertical track: the proximal end of tote transport platform 640 is connected to the mobile base and moveable along a vertical track on the mobile base, Pars. [0029], [0090]); and coupled to the movable platform (case 615 is part of robot 600 associated with wheeled mobile base 660).
However, although it is hinted at, Galluzzo does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a side wall of the housing is provided with an opening extending vertically and the displacement assembly penetrates through the opening, the fixed end is located on an inner side of the housing, and the free end is located on an outer side of the housing.
In the same field of endeavor, Augenbraun discloses a mobile operating robot (robot 10, FIG. 1) comprising:
a movable platform (transportation assembly 14 including base 28 and wheels 32, FIG. 1);
a height adjustment assembly disposed on the movable platform (conveyor 30 configured to carry the arm, extending upward from base 28, FIG. 1; Augenbraun, Col. 3, Lines 1-9);
a displacement assembly comprising a fixed end and a free end (robotic arm 16 having joints 18, 20, 22 and 24, mounted at its proximal end to conveyor 30 and traversing along conveyor 30 in a direction away from and towards the base, FIG. 1);
an end effector coupled to the free end of the displacement assembly (gripper 26 with fingers 27, FIG. 1); and
a housing sleeved on an outer side of the height adjustment assembly and coupled to the movable platform (See FIG. 1, exterior vertical body disposed about conveyor 30 and supported on base 28; Augenbraun, Col. 3, Lines 1–9).
wherein a side wall of the housing is provided with an opening extending vertically (See FIG. 1, vertically extending longitudinal opening in the exterior vertical body adjacent conveyor 30).
the displacement assembly penetrates through the opening (See FIG. 1, robotic arm 16 extending through the vertically extending longitudinal opening).
the fixed end is located on an inner side of the housing (See FIG. 1, proximal end of robotic arm 16 coupled to conveyor 30 at the interior side of the exterior vertical body); and
the free end is located on an outer side of the housing (See FIG. 1, robotic arm 16 extending outward from the exterior vertical body to distal gripper 26).
Augenbraun expressly teaches that conveyor 30 is configured to carry robotic arm 16 and that conveyor 30 may be motorized and controlled for arm movement (See FIG. 1, conveyor 30 and robotic arm 16; Augenbraun, Col. 3, Lines 1–9). The unnumbered exterior body and vertically extending opening are relied upon only for the structural arrangement clearly depicted in FIG. 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Galluzzo's manipulation robot 600 such that main body case 615, or an equivalent exterior housing thereof, surrounds Galluzzo’s vertical track and vertically movable tote transport platform 640 and includes the vertically extending side-wall opening taught by Augenbraun, in order to enclose and protect the vertically extending support and associated components while permitting the articulated manipulator arm 620 to extend outside the housing throughout its vertical operating range. Such modification would have constituted application of a known housing arrangement for a vertically extending mobile-robot arm structure to Galluzzo's corresponding vertically movable arm structure, yielding the predictable result of an enclosed vertical support mechanism while maintaining external access of the manipulator arm.
As so modified, Galluzzo's vertical track and vertically movable tote transport platform 640 would be surrounded by an exterior housing coupled to mobile base 660, the housing would include a vertically extending side-wall opening through which articulated manipulator arm 620 extends, the fixed end of arm 620 would be located on the inner side of the housing at platform 640, and the free end of arm 620 would be located on the outer side of the housing, as recited in claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, Galluzzo/Augenbraun discloses:
The mobile operating robot of claim 6, as set forth above.
Galluzzo further discloses:
wherein the housing comprises a body part (Fig. 6, main body case 615 vertical part extending from the top of case 615 to the the top edge of the adjoining platform 640 of the manipulation robot 600) and,
a base part located below the body part (Fig. 6, mobile base 660 of the manipulation robot 600 extending to the top edge of platform 640),
a cross-sectional area of the body part in a horizontal direction is adapted to a cross-sectional area of the height adjustment assembly in the horizontal direction, the body part is connected to the base part, and the base part is connected to a top edge of the movable platform (FIG. 6, the meeting of the two parts discussed above at the top edge of the platform 640, the vertical track where the proximal end of tote transport platform 640 is connected to the mobile base part/body part).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Galluzzo et al. (US 2015/0332213 A1) in view of Blankespoor et al. (US 2019/0255701 A1), hereinafter “Blankespoor.”
Regarding Claim 8, Galluzzo discloses:
The mobile operating robot of claim 1, as set forth above.
However, Galluzzo does not appear to disclose a counterweight component disposed on the movable platform, wherein the counterweight component is configured to balance a bending torque when the displacement assembly and the end effector extend out.
In the same field of endeavor, Blankespoor discloses a mobile operating robot (robot, FIGS. 1A-1C) comprising:
a movable platform (inverted pendulum body 200 supported by legs 400a and 400b carrying drive wheels 500a and 500b, FIGS. 1A-1C);
a displacement assembly comprising a fixed end and a free end (articulated manipulator arm 600 having proximal first end 610 and distal second end 620, with joints 650, 660 and 670, FIGS. 1A-1C);
an end effector coupled to the free end of the displacement assembly (end effector 700 with grippers 702, FIGS. 1A-1C); and
a counterweight component disposed on the movable platform (See FIGS. 1A–1C, counter-balance body 300 disposed on mobile robot body/IPB 200, Par. [0003]).
wherein the counterweight component is configured to balance a bending torque when the displacement assembly and the end effector extend out (See FIGS. 1A–1C and 2D, counter-balance body 300 moved relative to IPB 200 while manipulator arm 600 is extended forward so as to maintain the drive wheel and center of mass rearward of the reach point; end effector 700 disposed on distal end 620 of arm 600, Pars. [0003-0004]).
Blankespoor expressly identifies the problem addressed by this arrangement: extending a manipulator arm and its end effector toward a target can cause instability due to the resulting shift in center of mass, and Blankespoor counters that destabilizing condition by moving counter-balance body 300 to maintain the robot's center of mass rearward while arm 600 extends forward.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Galluzzo's manipulation robot 600 with the counter-balance arrangement taught by Blankespoor, with counter-balance body 300 carried by mobile base 660 opposite the outward reach direction of manipulator arm 620, in order to oppose the overturning moment and resulting center-of-mass shift produced when arm 620 and end effector 675 extend outward to reach and manipulate a tote. Galluzzo expressly requires substantial outward reach into storage racks, while Blankespoor expressly teaches moving a counter-balance body to maintain stability as a manipulator arm extends forward. The modification therefore would have been the application of a known balancing technique to a mobile manipulator presenting the same known stability problem, yielding the predictable result of increased resistance to tipping during outward arm extension.
As so modified, Galluzzo's mobile base 660 would carry a counterweight component configured to balance the bending/overturning torque generated when manipulator arm 620 and end effector 675 extend outward, as recited in claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. US 20210276203 A1 relates in general to high precision end effectors for robots and in particular to a combination break-away and tool changer high-precision end effector for mobile manipulation robots. US 20150050111 A1 relates to robotic systems in general, and more particularly to mobile manipulation systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fathi Abdelsalam whose telephone number is (571) 270-0380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10 AM to 6 PM ET.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/FATHI K. ABDELSALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights