CTNF 19/115,772 CTNF 97696 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and addressed below. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2025 has been received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. Regarding claim 1, “storage unit” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis: Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “unit”. Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term. Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim. This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (paragraph 0019) as central processing unit with memory. Regarding claim 1, “gripping position determination unit” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis: Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “unit”. Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term. Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim. This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (paragraph 0019) as central processing unit with memory. Regarding claim 1, “trajectory planning unit” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis: Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “unit”. Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term. Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim. This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (paragraph 0019) as central processing unit with memory. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear how a candidate is selected. Does the process continue to sequentially generate a plan for each candidate even after a candidate is used to generate a successfully trajectory plan? Are all successful trajectory plans selected? Is only the first successful trajectory plan selected? Clarification on the record is earnestly solicited. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear how “a difference between an environment map … and the result of the sensing of the surrounding environment” may interfere with the manipulator. Is this meant to be a check if the environment has changed and if either the original or the sensed environment interfere? Is this checking if a calculated movement between the original and current environment would interfere? How can a “difference” interfere? Clarification on the record is earnestly solicited. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear how “a difference between an environment map … and the result of the sensing of the surrounding environment” may interfere with the mobile object. Is this meant to be a check if the environment has changed and if either the original or the sensed environment interfere? Is this checking if a calculated movement between the original and current environment would interfere? How can a “difference” interfere? Clarification on the record is earnestly solicited. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if: It does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter) or Meets a three-prong test for determining that The claim recites a judicial exception (such as: a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, an abstract idea) Without integration into a practical application, and Does not recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Is the claim directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter)? Claim 1 is directed to a control apparatus (i.e. a machine) and claim 13 is directed to a control method (i.e. a process). Therefore, claim(s) 1 and 13 are within at least one of the four statutory categories. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I – Is the claim directed to a judicial exception? The judicial exceptions are as follows: Abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity) Laws of nature (e.g., naturally occurring correlations, scientific principles) Natural phenomena (e.g., wind) Products of nature (e.g., a plant found in the wild, minerals) Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 1 recites: [Claim 1] A control apparatus comprising: a storage unit that stores object arrangement condition information in which gripping positions of an object available when a manipulator grips the object are set in advance in correspondence with a type of object and a position where the object is arranged; and a gripping position determination unit that determines, when the manipulator transports the object from a transport source position to a transport destination position, a gripping position of the object by the manipulator on a basis of gripping positions of the object set in the object arrangement condition information for the transport source position and gripping positions of the object set in the object arrangement condition information for the transport destination position. The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determines…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at the object and manipulator and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. Independent claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 13 recites: [Claim 13] A control method comprising: by an arithmetic processing device, preparing object arrangement condition information in which gripping positions of an object available when a manipulator grips the object are set in advance in correspondence with a type of object and a position where the object is arranged; and determining, when the manipulator transports the object from a transport source position to a transport destination position, a gripping position of the object by the manipulator on a basis of gripping positions of the object set in the object arrangement condition information for the transport source position and gripping positions of the object set in the object arrangement condition information for the transport destination position. The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “preparing…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining in advance different strategies for grasping an object in a certain orientation and “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at the object and manipulator and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II – Does the claim, as a whole, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application? Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. The guidelines provide the following (non-exhaustive) list of exemplary considerations which are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial element into a practical application: An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; An additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition An additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture which is integral to the claim; An additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception The following is a (non-exhaustive) list of examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application: An additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; An additional element adds insignificant extra-solutionary activity to the judicial exception; An additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite additional limitations (emphasized below). Claim 1 recites: [Claim 1] A control apparatus comprising: a storage unit that stores object arrangement condition information in which gripping positions of an object available when a manipulator grips the object are set in advance in correspondence with a type of object and a position where the object is arranged; and a gripping position determination unit that determines, when the manipulator transports the object from a transport source position to a transport destination position, a gripping position of the object by the manipulator on a basis of gripping positions of the object set in the object arrangement condition information for the transport source position and gripping positions of the object set in the object arrangement condition information for the transport destination position. For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “a storage unit” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (control apparatus) to perform the process. The “control apparatus” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose robotic control environment. The control apparatus is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determination step. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Independent claim 13 includes limitations that recite additional limitations (emphasized below). Claim 13 recites: [Claim 13] A control method comprising: by an arithmetic processing device, preparing object arrangement condition information in which gripping positions of an object available when a manipulator grips the object are set in advance in correspondence with a type of object and a position where the object is arranged; and determining, when the manipulator transports the object from a transport source position to a transport destination position, a gripping position of the object by the manipulator on a basis of gripping positions of the object set in the object arrangement condition information for the transport source position and gripping positions of the object set in the object arrangement condition information for the transport destination position. For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “a storage unit” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (arithmetic processing device) to perform the process. The “arithmetic processing device” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose robotic control environment. The arithmetic processing device is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the preparing and determining steps. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Step 2B – Do the additional elements incorporate an inventive concept to the claim? In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. Regarding independent claim 1: Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a control apparatus to perform the preparing and determining amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “a control apparatus” and a “storage unit” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “a control apparatus” and a “storage unit” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the storage means are all conventional storage structures within the control apparatus, and the specification does not provide any indication that the control apparatus is anything other than a conventional computer within a robotic system. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Thus, the independent claim 1 as well as the dependent claims are directed toward an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and do not comprise significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Regarding independent claim 13: Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 13 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a arithmetic processing device to perform the preparing and determining amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “preparing…” and “determining…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “preparing…” and “determining…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the storage means are all conventional storage structures within the control apparatus, and the specification does not provide any indication that the arithmetic processing device is anything other than a conventional computer within a robotic system. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Thus, the independent claim 13 as well as the dependent claims are directed toward an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and do not comprise significantly more than the recited abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Dependent Claims and Conclusion Dependent claim(s) 2-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim(s) 1 and 13. Therefore, claim(s) 1-13 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw et al. (US 20230182293 A1), hereinafter Shaw, in view of Fan et al. (US 20220072707 A1), hereinafter Fan . Regarding claim 1, Shaw teaches: [Claim 1] A control apparatus comprising: a storage unit that stores object arrangement condition information in which gripping positions of an object available when a manipulator grips the object are set in advance (Paragraph 0073, "For instance, perception module 310 may be configured to provide one or more images to processor(s) 332, which may be programmed to detect one or more objects in the provided one or more images for grasping by the robotic device. Data storage 334 may be configured to store a set of grasp candidates 336 used by processor(s) 332 to represent possible grasp strategies for grasping a target object. ") in correspondence with … and a position where the object is arranged; (Paragraph 0066, " Certain box positions and orientations relative to the shelving may suggest different box picking strategies.") and a gripping position determination unit that determines, when the manipulator transports the object from a transport source position to a transport destination position, a gripping position of the object by the manipulator on a basis of gripping positions of the object set in the object arrangement condition information for the transport source position (Paragraph 0081, "After selection of a grasp face in act 520, process 500 proceeds to act 530, where a grasp strategy for grasping the object on the selected grasp face is determined. In some embodiments, a plurality of grasp candidates are generated in act 520 and the grasp candidate likely to produce the most secure grasp is selected as the determined grasp strategy. The inventors have recognized and appreciated that maximizing the area overlap between the gripper and the face of the object to be grasped does not necessarily result in the most secure grasp possible. In some embodiments, the physical interactions between individual suction cups of the gripper and the object face are modeled to evaluate grasp quality for different grasp candidates. Including information about the locations of the suction cups on the face of the object, and the forces they are expected to experience when the object is grasped, facilitates an evaluation of the quality of the grasp prior to grasping the object. As discussed above, a vacuum-based gripper for a robotic device may include a plurality of suction cups. A physics-based evaluation function used to determine grasp quality in accordance with the techniques described herein may determine grasp quality based on which suction cups of the gripper are activated (e.g., as shown in FIG. 8B) and the forces that the activated suction cups are expected to experience when engaged with the object. Such an evaluation function allows for calculation of the capacity of the grasp as a function of the gripper pose with respect to the object face.") … Shaw does not specifically teach identifying objects in order to grasp or placing the object in a known pose. However, Fan, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches: … a type of object (Paragraph 0058, "In another embodiment, the computer 420 directly identifies a grasp during live robotic operations based on the grasping database from the box 150. In this embodiment, the computer 420 knows in advance what types of objects 440 are contained in the bin 450, as this information is included with the grasping database from the box 150 (along with point clouds, grasp poses, and success rates from the physical environment simulation). When a depth map is found which includes an object (such as the object 442) in a position for a high quality grasp according to the previously generated grasp database, the computer 420 provides the individual object grasp data to the controller 410, which then commands the robot 400 to grasp and move the object.") … and gripping positions of the object set in the object arrangement condition information for the transport destination position. (Paragraph 0002, " the robot is tasked with picking up each part and placing it in a predefined orientation (pose) on a conveyor") It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system and operating methods as taught by Shaw with the ability to set a grasp strategy according to an object identified using visual data and to place the object in a predefined pose as taught by Fan. This demonstrates the ability of the system to utilize a known target position at the destination position. Since each pose is associated with a plurality of known grasping strategies, it would be obvious to associate the pose at the destination with the plurality of grasping strategy candidates. Regarding claim 2, where all the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, Shaw further teaches: [Claim 2] The control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein wherein the gripping position determination unit determines a gripping position available at both the transport source position … as a gripping position candidate to be used for the transport. (Paragraph 0081, "After selection of a grasp face in act 520, process 500 proceeds to act 530, where a grasp strategy for grasping the object on the selected grasp face is determined. In some embodiments, a plurality of grasp candidates are generated in act 520 and the grasp candidate likely to produce the most secure grasp is selected as the determined grasp strategy. The inventors have recognized and appreciated that maximizing the area overlap between the gripper and the face of the object to be grasped does not necessarily result in the most secure grasp possible. In some embodiments, the physical interactions between individual suction cups of the gripper and the object face are modeled to evaluate grasp quality for different grasp candidates. Including information about the locations of the suction cups on the face of the object, and the forces they are expected to experience when the object is grasped, facilitates an evaluation of the quality of the grasp prior to grasping the object. As discussed above, a vacuum-based gripper for a robotic device may include a plurality of suction cups. A physics-based evaluation function used to determine grasp quality in accordance with the techniques described herein may determine grasp quality based on which suction cups of the gripper are activated (e.g., as shown in FIG. 8B) and the forces that the activated suction cups are expected to experience when engaged with the object. Such an evaluation function allows for calculation of the capacity of the grasp as a function of the gripper pose with respect to the object face.") Shaw does not specifically discuss placing the object in a known pose at the destination. However, Fan, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches: … and the transport destination position (Paragraph 0002, " the robot is tasked with picking up each part and placing it in a predefined orientation (pose) on a conveyor") … It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system and operating methods as taught by Shaw with the ability to place the object in a predefined pose as taught by Fan. This demonstrates the ability of the system to utilize a known target position at the destination position. Since each pose is associated with a plurality of known grasping strategies, it would be obvious to associate the predefined pose at the destination with the plurality of grasping strategy candidates. Regarding claim 13, Shaw further teaches: [Claim 13] A control method comprising: by an arithmetic processing device, preparing object arrangement condition information in which gripping positions of an object available when a manipulator grips the object are set in advance (Paragraph 0072-0073, "In some examples, the terms “physical processor” or “computer processor” generally refer to any type or form of hardware-implemented processing unit capable of interpreting and/or executing computer-readable instructions. In one example, a physical processor may access and/or modify one or more modules stored in the above-described memory device. Examples of physical processors include, without limitation, microprocessors, microcontrollers, Central Processing Units (CPUs), Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) that implement softcore processors, Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), portions of one or more of the same, variations or combinations of one or more of the same, or any other suitable physical processor. FIG. 3 illustrates an example computing architecture 330 for a robotic device 300, according to an illustrative embodiment of the invention. The computing architecture 330 includes one or more processors 332 and data storage 334 in communication with processor(s) 332. Robotic device 300 may also include a perception module 310 (which may include, e.g., the perception mast 140 shown and described above in FIGS. 1A-1B). The perception module 310 may be configured to provide input to processor(s) 332. For instance, perception module 310 may be configured to provide one or more images to processor(s) 332, which may be programmed to detect one or more objects in the provided one or more images for grasping by the robotic device. Data storage 334 may be configured to store a set of grasp candidates 336 used by processor(s) 332 to represent possible grasp strategies for grasping a target object. Robotic device 300 may also include robotic servo controllers 340, which may be in communication with processor(s) 332 and may receive control commands from processor(s) 332 to move a corresponding portion of the robotic device. For example, after selection of a grasp candidate from the set of grasp candidates 336, the processor(s) 332 may issue control instructions to robotic servo controllers 340 to control operation of an arm and/or gripper of the robotic device to attempt to grasp the object using the grasp strategy described in the selected grasp candidate.") in correspondence with … and a position where the object is arranged; (Paragraph 0066, " Certain box positions and orientations relative to the shelving may suggest different box picking strategies.") and determining, when the manipulator transports the object from a transport source position to a transport destination position, a gripping position of the object by the manipulator on a basis of gripping positions of the object set in the object arrangement condition information for the transport source position (Paragraph 0081, "After selection of a grasp face in act 520, process 500 proceeds to act 530, where a grasp strategy for grasping the object on the selected grasp face is determined. In some embodiments, a plurality of grasp candidates are generated in act 520 and the grasp candidate likely to produce the most secure grasp is selected as the determined grasp strategy. The inventors have recognized and appreciated that maximizing the area overlap between the gripper and the face of the object to be grasped does not necessarily result in the most secure grasp possible. In some embodiments, the physical interactions between individual suction cups of the gripper and the object face are modeled to evaluate grasp quality for different grasp candidates. Including information about the locations of the suction cups on the face of the object, and the forces they are expected to experience when the object is grasped, facilitates an evaluation of the quality of the grasp prior to grasping the object. As discussed above, a vacuum-based gripper for a robotic device may include a plurality of suction cups. A physics-based evaluation function used to determine grasp quality in accordance with the techniques described herein may determine grasp quality based on which suction cups of the gripper are activated (e.g., as shown in FIG. 8B) and the forces that the activated suction cups are expected to experience when engaged with the object. Such an evaluation function allows for calculation of the capacity of the grasp as a function of the gripper pose with respect to the object face.") … Shaw does not specifically teach identifying objects in order to grasp or placing the object in a known pose. However, Fan, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches: … a type of object (Paragraph 0058, "In another embodiment, the computer 420 directly identifies a grasp during live robotic operations based on the grasping database from the box 150. In this embodiment, the computer 420 knows in advance what types of objects 440 are contained in the bin 450, as this information is included with the grasping database from the box 150 (along with point clouds, grasp poses, and success rates from the physical environment simulation). When a depth map is found which includes an object (such as the object 442) in a position for a high quality grasp according to the previously generated grasp database, the computer 420 provides the individual object grasp data to the controller 410, which then commands the robot 400 to grasp and move the object.") … and gripping positions of the object set in the object arrangement condition information for the transport destination position. (Paragraph 0002, " the robot is tasked with picking up each part and placing it in a predefined orientation (pose) on a conveyor") It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system and operating methods as taught by Shaw with the ability to set a grasp strategy according to an object identified using visual data and to place the object in a predefined pose as taught by Fan. This demonstrates the ability of the system to utilize a known target position at the destination position. Since each pose is associated with a plurality of known grasping strategies, it would be obvious to associate the pose at the destination with the plurality of grasping strategy candidates . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw in view of Fan and in further view of Yamauchi et al. (US 20200338730 A1), hereinafter Yamauchi . Regarding claim 3, where all the limitations of claim 2 are discussed above, Shaw further teaches: [Claim 3] The control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in a case where there is a plurality of the gripping position candidates, the gripping position determination unit generates a candidate list in which the gripping position candidates are arranged in score order using a score (Paragraph 0086, "Process 500 then proceeds to act 550, where it is determined based on the analysis performed in act 540 whether the grasp strategy determined in act 530 is possible based on the reachability and/or trajectory constraints. If it is determined that the grasp is not possible, process 500 returns to act 530, where a different grasp strategy is determined. Alternatively, when it is determined that the grasp is not possible but may be possible if the robotic device is moved (e.g., closer to the object), the robotic device may be controlled to drive to a location where the grasp is possible, as described above. In some embodiments, the plurality of grasp candidates that are generated and evaluated (e.g., scored or ranked) in act 530 are stored and made available throughout the grasp planning process 500, such that when a grasp strategy is rejected or fails at any point of the process following act 530, the next best grasp candidate (e.g., next highest scoring grasp candidate) can immediately be selected rather than having to run additional simulations. Having a set of evaluated grasp candidates available throughout the grasp planning process increases the speed by which a final grasp candidate can be selected, resulting in less downtime for the robotic device between object picks. In some embodiments, when a grasp strategy is rejected or fails, one or more additional grasp candidates may be computed and added to the set of grasp candidates.") … Shaw does not specifically teach monitoring the amount of change in posture of the manipulator during movement. However, Yamauchi, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches: … based on an amount of change of the manipulator from the transport source position to the transport destination position. (Paragraph 0069, "By the above processing, the joint angle space trajectory smoothing unit 205 introduces smoothing processing in the joint angle space for the partial trajectory between the via points, so that it is possible to minimize a change in a hand posture of the robot arm and generate the trajectory on which the robot arm can operate at a high velocity." as well as Paragraph 0065, "FIG. 15 shows a trajectory corrected by selecting trajectories that may be subjected to smoothing using information on whether smoothing is possible, and smoothly connecting the trajectories in the joint angle space. FIG. 15 is a diagram showing the axis J1 and the axis J2 in the joint angle space as in FIG. 14. By this processing, a trajectory configured with a plurality of partial trajectories T1 to T4 passes through the via points (P2 to P4) and is smoothly connected in the joint angle space.") It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system and methods as taught by Shaw with the ability to monitor the amount of change of posture of the manipulator during a proposed trajectory as taught by Yamauchi. This optimization method works by identifying a trajectory which minimizes the change in posture of the manipulator. It would be obvious to combine with the scoring methods as taught by Shaw since it would allow for selection of an efficient and stable strategy for movement of an object from the initial position to the destination position. Regarding claim 4, where all the limitations of claim 3 are discussed above, Shaw further teaches: [Claim 4] The control apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising: a trajectory planning unit that generates trajectory plans of the manipulator, wherein the trajectory planning unit sequentially generates the trajectory plans using the gripping position candidates in order of the score in the candidate list. (Paragraphs 0084-0085, "Process 500 then proceeds to act 540, where the reachability of the object using the arm of the robotic device is determined and a trajectory for the arm is generated. As discussed above, some types of grasp strategies may not be feasible or favored relative to other grasp strategies. For instance, a collision check between the gripper and the objects surrounding the target object may be performed to ensure that the gripper can be placed at the position specified by the determined grasp strategy. Additionally, although a grasp might perform well according to the modeled physical interactions between the gripper and the object (e.g., the score associated with the grasp strategy is high), the object may not be reachable by the arm of the robotic device. For instance, the arm of the robotic device may have a limited range of motion and must also avoid collision with surrounding environmental obstacles (e.g., truck walls and ceiling, racking located over the selected object, other objects in the vicinity of the selected object, etc.). In some embodiments, the fact that the object (or a particular face of the object) may not be reachable by the arm of the robotic device in its current location may not be determinative if it is possible for the robotic device to change its location. Accordingly, in some embodiments the ability of the robotic device to reposition itself (e.g., by moving its mobile base) relative to the object may be taken into consideration when determining whether an object is reachable by the robotic device. Although moving the location of the robotic device to change its reachability (e.g., moving the robotic device closer to a stack of objects) may take more time than keeping the base of the robotic device stationary and selecting a different grasp strategy, if it is preferable for robotic device to grasp a particular object in a particular way relative to other objects (e.g., because of a risk of collapsing a stack of objects), the desire to pick that particular object in a particular way may outweigh the time delay needed to move the robotic device to a position where the object is reachable. In some embodiments, a decision on whether to move the robotic device to change its reachability may be made based, at least in part, on whether a particular grasp candidate being considered would be reachable if the robot moved and all of the previously-examined (e.g., higher scoring) grasp candidates have also not been reachable by the robotic device. In such an instance, it may be determined to control the robotic device to change its position relative to the objects in its environment to make them more reachable.") Regarding claim 5, where all the limitations of claim 4 are discussed above, Shaw further teaches: [Claim 5] The control apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the gripping position determination unit deletes, from the candidate list, the gripping position candidate with which generation of the trajectory plan has failed, (Paragraph 0086, "Process 500 then proceeds to act 550, where it is determined based on the analysis performed in act 540 whether the grasp strategy determined in act 530 is possible based on the reachability and/or trajectory constraints. If it is determined that the grasp is not possible, process 500 returns to act 530, where a different grasp strategy is determined. Alternatively, when it is determined that the grasp is not possible but may be possible if the robotic device is moved (e.g., closer to the object), the robotic device may be controlled to drive to a location where the grasp is possible, as described above. In some embodiments, the plurality of grasp candidates that are generated and evaluated (e.g., scored or ranked) in act 530 are stored and made available throughout the grasp planning process 500, such that when a grasp strategy is rejected or fails at any point of the process following act 530, the next best grasp candidate (e.g., next highest scoring grasp candidate) can immediately be selected rather than having to run additional simulations. Having a set of evaluated grasp candidates available throughout the grasp planning process increases the speed by which a final grasp candidate can be selected, resulting in less downtime for the robotic device between object picks. In some embodiments, when a grasp strategy is rejected or fails, one or more additional grasp candidates may be computed and added to the set of grasp candidates.") and determines the gripping position candidate with which the trajectory plan has been successfully generated as the gripping position of the object by the manipulator. (Paragraph 0088, "If it is determined in act 550 that the selected grasp strategy is possible, process 500 proceeds to act 560, where the robotic device is controlled to attempt grasping of the target object based on the selected grasp strategy. As part of act 560 to attempt to grasp the target object, an image of the environment may be captured by the perception module of the robotic device, and the image may be analyzed in act 570 to verify that the target object is still present in the environment. If it is determined in act 570 that the target object is no longer present in the environment, process 500 returns to act 510, where a different object in the environment is selected (e.g., in act 420 of process 400) for picking. If it is determined in act 570 that the target object is present, act 560 continues to act 580, where the quality of the grasp is assessed to determine whether the actual grasp of the target object is likely sufficient to move the object along a planned trajectory without dropping the object. For instance, the grasp quality of each of the activated suction cups in the gripper may be determined to assess the overall grasp quality of the grasped object. If it is determined in act 580 that the grasp quality is sufficient, process 500 proceeds to act 590, where the object is lifted by the gripper. Otherwise, if it is determined that the grasp quality is not sufficient (e.g., by comparing the grasp quality to a threshold value), process 500 returns to act 530 (or act 520 as described above) to determine a different grasp strategy. As discussed above, the different grasp strategy may be selected as the next best grasp strategy based on its ranking or score in the set of grasp candidates generated and evaluated in act 530.") Regarding claim 6, where all the limitations of claim 5 are discussed above, Shaw further teaches: [Claim 6] The control apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the gripping position determination unit deletes, from the candidate list (Paragraph 0087, "For instance, if the reason the grasp strategy failed in the act 550 was due to the object being located too close to an obstruction to execute a top pick, it may subsequently be determined in act 520 that top picking is not possible, and a face pick grasp strategy should be selected. As described above, in some embodiments, first determining a grasp face in act 520 and subsequently determining a grasp strategy for the determined grasp face in act 530 are not implemented using separate acts. Rather, the set of grasp candidates determined and evaluated in act 530 may be based on simulated grasps from multiple grasp faces such that the set of grasp candidates includes grasp candidates corresponding to both top pick and face pick grasp strategies. In such implementations, one or more heuristics (e.g., top picks being preferred over face picks) may not be used to determine a ranking or score assigned to a grasp candidate. Rather, a physics-based interaction model describing the physical interaction between the object and the gripper may be used to determine a preferred or target grasp strategy. For example, an object may have a small top face and a much larger front face. In such an instance, a face pick may be associated with a higher score due to a larger number of suction cups in the gripper being able to contact the front face compared to the top face.") on a basis of a result of sensing of a surrounding environment of the object, (Paragraph 0074, "During operation, perception module 310 can perceive one or more objects (e.g., boxes) for grasping (e.g., by an end-effector of the robotic device 300) and/or one or more aspects of the robotic device's environment. In some embodiments, perception module 310 includes one or more sensors configured to sense the environment. For example, the one or more sensors may include, but are not limited to, a color camera, a depth camera, a LIDAR or stereo vision device, or another device with suitable sensory capabilities. In some embodiments, image(s) captured by perception module 310 are processed by processor(s) 332 using trained box detection model(s) to extract surfaces (e.g., faces) of boxes or other objects in the image capable of being grasped by the robotic device 300.") the gripping position candidate with which the sensed surrounding environment and the manipulator interfere with each other. (Paragraph 0084, "Process 500 then proceeds to act 540, where the reachability of the object using the arm of the robotic device is determined and a trajectory for the arm is generated. As discussed above, some types of grasp strategies may not be feasible or favored relative to other grasp strategies. For instance, a collision check between the gripper and the objects surrounding the target object may be performed to ensure that the gripper can be placed at the position specified by the determined grasp strategy. Additionally, although a grasp might perform well according to the modeled physical interactions between the gripper and the object (e.g., the score associated with the grasp strategy is high), the object may not be reachable by the arm of the robotic device. For instance, the arm of the robotic device may have a limited range of motion and must also avoid collision with surrounding environmental obstacles (e.g., truck walls and ceiling, racking located over the selected object, other objects in the vicinity of the selected object, etc.).") 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw in view of Fan and Yamauchi and in further view of Kansky et al. (US 20230110897 A1), hereinafter Kansky . Regarding claim 7, where all the limitations of claim 8 are discussed above, Shaw further teaches: [Claim 7] The control apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the gripping position determination unit … and the result of the sensing of the surrounding environment of the object (Paragraph 0074, "During operation, perception module 310 can perceive one or more objects (e.g., boxes) for grasping (e.g., by an end-effector of the robotic device 300) and/or one or more aspects of the robotic device's environment. In some embodiments, perception module 310 includes one or more sensors configured to sense the environment. For example, the one or more sensors may include, but are not limited to, a color camera, a depth camera, a LIDAR or stereo vision device, or another device with suitable sensory capabilities. In some embodiments, image(s) captured by perception module 310 are processed by processor(s) 332 using trained box detection model(s) to extract surfaces (e.g., faces) of boxes or other objects in the image capable of being grasped by the robotic device 300.") interferes with the manipulator. (Paragraph 0084, "Process 500 then proceeds to act 540, where the reachability of the object using the arm of the robotic device is determined and a trajectory for the arm is generated. As discussed above, some types of grasp strategies may not be feasible or favored relative to other grasp strategies. For instance, a collision check between the gripper and the objects surrounding the target object may be performed to ensure that the gripper can be placed at the position specified by the determined grasp strategy. Additionally, although a grasp might perform well according to the modeled physical interactions between the gripper and the object (e.g., the score associated with the grasp strategy is high), the object may not be reachable by the arm of the robotic device. For instance, the arm of the robotic device may have a limited range of motion and must also avoid collision with surrounding environmental obstacles (e.g., truck walls and ceiling, racking located over the selected object, other objects in the vicinity of the selected object, etc.).") Shaw does not specifically disclose comparing the sensed data to reference information to identify differences. However, Kansky, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches: … determines whether or not a difference between an environment map indicating the surrounding environment of the object created in advance (Paragraph 0072, "Monitoring the environment for detected changes S400 can function to monitor physical properties of the environment. The environment can be monitored using the computing system, such as using the environment monitoring module, and/or any other suitable module; and/or any other suitable system. A detected change can include a new location of an object (e.g., after object movement), movement of a target location, and/or any other suitable movement or change. The detected changes can be observed between a first image to a second image occurring at different times, and/or observed in any other suitable media. The detected changes can be monitored in real time, near real time, at a predetermined time (e.g., when the monitoring experiences lag), at a predetermined frequency, and/or at any other suitable time. The detected changes can be monitored for at a predetermined frequency (e.g., less than 10 Hz, more than 10 Hz, more than 100 Hz, more than 200 Hz, etc.), and/or at any other suitable frequency. It should be appreciated that the predetermined frequency does not need to be a constant throughout the execution of the described method by the system. In fact, the predetermined frequency can vary in values over time.") … It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system and operating methods as taught by Shaw with the ability to identify changes in the environment as taught by Kansky. Monitoring the environment for changes would help to ensure that the system is making determinations based on an accurate representation of the environment. This would increase planning efficiency and reduce errors/collisions. Regarding claim 8, where all the limitations of claim 6 are discussed above, Shaw further teaches: [Claim 8] The control apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the manipulator is mounted on a mobile object. (Paragraph 0059, "In contrast, a generalist robot may be designed to perform a wide variety of tasks, and may be able to take a box through a large portion of the box's life cycle from the truck to the shelf (e.g., unloading, palletizing, transporting, depalletizing, storing). While such generalist robots may perform a variety of tasks, they may be unable to perform individual tasks with high enough efficiency or accuracy to warrant introduction into a highly streamlined warehouse operation. For example, while mounting an off-the-shelf robotic manipulator onto an off-the-shelf mobile robot might yield a system that could, in theory, accomplish many warehouse tasks, such a loosely integrated system may be incapable of performing complex or dynamic motions that require coordination between the manipulator and the mobile base, resulting in a combined system that is inefficient and inflexible. Typical operation of such a system within a warehouse environment may include the mobile base and the manipulator operating s equentially and (partially or entirely) independently of each other. For example, the mobile base may first drive toward a stack of boxes with the manipulator powered down. Upon reaching the stack of boxes, the mobile base may come to a stop, and the manipulator may power up and begin manipulating the boxes as the base remains stationary. After the manipulation task is completed, the manipulator may again power down, and the mobile base may drive to another destination to perform the next task. As should be appreciated from the foregoing, the mobile base and the manipulator in such systems are effectively two separate robots that have been joined together; accordingly, a controller associated with the manipulator may not be configured to share information with, pass commands to, or receive commands from a separate controller associated with the mobile base. As such, such a poorly integrated mobile manipulator robot may be forced to operate both its manipulator and its base at suboptimal speeds or through suboptimal trajectories, as the two separate controllers struggle to work together. Additionally, while there are limitations that arise from a purely engineering perspective, there are additional limitations that must be imposed to comply with safety regulations. For instance, if a safety regulation requires that a mobile manipulator must be able to be completely shut down within a certain period of time when a human enters a region within a certain distance of the robot, a loosely integrated mobile manipulator robot may not be able to act sufficiently quickly to ensure that both the manipulator and the mobile base (individually and in aggregate) do not a pose a threat to the human. To ensure that such loosely integrated systems operate within required safety constraints, such systems are forced to operate at even slower speeds or to execute even more conservative trajectories than those limited speeds and trajectories as already imposed by the engineering problem. As such, the speed and efficiency of generalist robots performing tasks in warehouse environments to date have been limited.") Regarding claim 10, where all the limitations of claim 8 are discussed above, Shaw further teaches: [Claim 10] The control apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the gripping position determination unit generates the candidate list using the score (Paragraph 0086, "Process 500 then proceeds to act 550, where it is determined based on the analysis performed in act 540 whether the grasp strategy determined in act 530 is possible based on the reachability and/or trajectory constraints. If it is determined that the grasp is not possible, process 500 returns to act 530, where a different grasp strategy is determined. Alternatively, when it is determined that the grasp is not possible but may be possible if the robotic device is moved (e.g., closer to the object), the robotic device may be controlled to drive to a location where the grasp is possible, as described above. In some embodiments, the plurality of grasp candidates that are generated and evaluated (e.g., scored or ranked) in act 530 are stored and made available throughout the grasp planning process 500, such that when a grasp strategy is rejected or fails at any point of the process following act 530, the next best grasp candidate (e.g., next highest scoring grasp candidate) can immediately be selected rather than having to run additional simulations. Having a set of evaluated grasp candidates available throughout the grasp planning process increases the speed by which a final grasp candidate can be selected, resulting in less downtime for the robotic device between object picks. In some embodiments, when a grasp strategy is rejected or fails, one or more additional grasp candidates may be computed and added to the set of grasp candidates.") further based on an amount of change of the mobile object from the transport source position to the transport destination position. (Paragraph 0085, "In some embodiments, the fact that the object (or a particular face of the object) may not be reachable by the arm of the robotic device in its current location may not be determinative if it is possible for the robotic device to change its location. Accordingly, in some embodiments the ability of the robotic device to reposition itself (e.g., by moving its mobile base) relative to the object may be taken into consideration when determining whether an object is reachable by the robotic device. Although moving the location of the robotic device to change its reachability (e.g., moving the robotic device closer to a stack of objects) may take more time than keeping the base of the robotic device stationary and selecting a different grasp strategy, if it is preferable for robotic device to grasp a particular object in a particular way relative to other objects (e.g., because of a risk of collapsing a stack of objects), the desire to pick that particular object in a particular way may outweigh the time delay needed to move the robotic device to a position where the object is reachable. In some embodiments, a decision on whether to move the robotic device to change its reachability may be made based, at least in part, on whether a particular grasp candidate being considered would be reachable if the robot moved and all of the previously-examined (e.g., higher scoring) grasp candidates have also not been reachable by the robotic device. In such an instance, it may be determined to control the robotic device to change its position relative to the objects in its environment to make them more reachable.") Regarding claim 11, where all the limitations of claim 8 are discussed above, Shaw further teaches: [Claim 11] The control apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the gripping position determination unit further deletes, from the candidate list, the gripping position candidate (Paragraph 0087, "For instance, if the reason the grasp strategy failed in the act 550 was due to the object being located too close to an obstruction to execute a top pick, it may subsequently be determined in act 520 that top picking is not possible, and a face pick grasp strategy should be selected. As described above, in some embodiments, first determining a grasp face in act 520 and subsequently determining a grasp strategy for the determined grasp face in act 530 are not implemented using separate acts. Rather, the set of grasp candidates determined and evaluated in act 530 may be based on simulated grasps from multiple grasp faces such that the set of grasp candidates includes grasp candidates corresponding to both top pick and face pick grasp strategies. In such implementations, one or more heuristics (e.g., top picks being preferred over face picks) may not be used to determine a ranking or score assigned to a grasp candidate. Rather, a physics-based interaction model describing the physical interaction between the object and the gripper may be used to determine a preferred or target grasp strategy. For example, an object may have a small top face and a much larger front face. In such an instance, a face pick may be associated with a higher score due to a larger number of suction cups in the gripper being able to contact the front face compared to the top face.") with which the sensed surrounding environment (Paragraph 0074, "During operation, perception module 310 can perceive one or more objects (e.g., boxes) for grasping (e.g., by an end-effector of the robotic device 300) and/or one or more aspects of the robotic device's environment. In some embodiments, perception module 310 includes one or more sensors configured to sense the environment. For example, the one or more sensors may include, but are not limited to, a color camera, a depth camera, a LIDAR or stereo vision device, or another device with suitable sensory capabilities. In some embodiments, image(s) captured by perception module 310 are processed by processor(s) 332 using trained box detection model(s) to extract surfaces (e.g., faces) of boxes or other objects in the image capable of being grasped by the robotic device 300.") and the mobile object interfere with each other. (Paragraph 0084, "Process 500 then proceeds to act 540, where the reachability of the object using the arm of the robotic device is determined and a trajectory for the arm is generated. As discussed above, some types of grasp strategies may not be feasible or favored relative to other grasp strategies. For instance, a collision check between the gripper and the objects surrounding the target object may be performed to ensure that the gripper can be placed at the position specified by the determined grasp strategy. Additionally, although a grasp might perform well according to the modeled physical interactions between the gripper and the object (e.g., the score associated with the grasp strategy is high), the object may not be reachable by the arm of the robotic device. For instance, the arm of the robotic device may have a limited range of motion and must also avoid collision with surrounding environmental obstacles (e.g., truck walls and ceiling, racking located over the selected object, other objects in the vicinity of the selected object, etc.)." Please also see paragraphs 0059 and 0060 which demonstrate that the mobile base is controlled in an integrated manner with the manipulator.) Regarding claim 12, where all the limitations of claim 11 are discussed above, Shaw further teaches: [Claim 12] The control apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the gripping position determination unit … and the result of the sensing of the surrounding environment of the object (Paragraph 0074, "During operation, perception module 310 can perceive one or more objects (e.g., boxes) for grasping (e.g., by an end-effector of the robotic device 300) and/or one or more aspects of the robotic device's environment. In some embodiments, perception module 310 includes one or more sensors configured to sense the environment. For example, the one or more sensors may include, but are not limited to, a color camera, a depth camera, a LIDAR or stereo vision device, or another device with suitable sensory capabilities. In some embodiments, image(s) captured by perception module 310 are processed by processor(s) 332 using trained box detection model(s) to extract surfaces (e.g., faces) of boxes or other objects in the image capable of being grasped by the robotic device 300.") interferes with the mobile object. (Paragraph 0084, "Process 500 then proceeds to act 540, where the reachability of the object using the arm of the robotic device is determined and a trajectory for the arm is generated. As discussed above, some types of grasp strategies may not be feasible or favored relative to other grasp strategies. For instance, a collision check between the gripper and the objects surrounding the target object may be performed to ensure that the gripper can be placed at the position specified by the determined grasp strategy. Additionally, although a grasp might perform well according to the modeled physical interactions between the gripper and the object (e.g., the score associated with the grasp strategy is high), the object may not be reachable by the arm of the robotic device. For instance, the arm of the robotic device may have a limited range of motion and must also avoid collision with surrounding environmental obstacles (e.g., truck walls and ceiling, racking located over the selected object, other objects in the vicinity of the selected object, etc.)." Please also see paragraphs 0059 and 0060 which demonstrate that the mobile base is controlled in an integrated manner with the manipulator.) Shaw does not specifically disclose comparing the sensed data to reference information to identify differences. However, Kansky, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches: … determines whether or not a difference between an environment map indicating the surrounding environment of the object created in advance (Paragraph 0072, "Monitoring the environment for detected changes S400 can function to monitor physical properties of the environment. The environment can be monitored using the computing system, such as using the environment monitoring module, and/or any other suitable module; and/or any other suitable system. A detected change can include a new location of an object (e.g., after object movement), movement of a target location, and/or any other suitable movement or change. The detected changes can be observed between a first image to a second image occurring at different times, and/or observed in any other suitable media. The detected changes can be monitored in real time, near real time, at a predetermined time (e.g., when the monitoring experiences lag), at a predetermined frequency, and/or at any other suitable time. The detected changes can be monitored for at a predetermined frequency (e.g., less than 10 Hz, more than 10 Hz, more than 100 Hz, more than 200 Hz, etc.), and/or at any other suitable frequency. It should be appreciated that the predetermined frequency does not need to be a constant throughout the execution of the described method by the system. In fact, the predetermined frequency can vary in values over time.") … It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system and operating methods as taught by Shaw with the ability to identify changes in the environment as taught by Kansky. Monitoring the environment for changes would help to ensure that the system is making determinations based on an accurate representation of the environment. This would increase planning efficiency and reduce errors/collisions. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the referencesapplied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations arerepresentative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER KENIRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5468. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30. 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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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. /H.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 2 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 3 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 4 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 5 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 6 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 7 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 8 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 9 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 10 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 11 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 12 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 13 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 14 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 15 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 16 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 17 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 18 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 19 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 20 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 21 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 22 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 23 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 24 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 25 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 26 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 27 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 28 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 29 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 30 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 31 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 32 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 33 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 34 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 35 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 36 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 37 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 38 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 39 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 40 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/115,772 Page 41 Art Unit: 3657
Prosecution Insights