DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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.
Claims 1-9, 14-16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrick (US 2010/0109903) in view of Troy et al. (US 2018/0321352).
Re claims 1, 20 and 21:
Carrick teaches in part at para 0197:
“During pallet packing, the monitoring of an item's position, and orientation, can provide feedback to assist in placing the item at a desired location, in a desired orientation, on a pallet. For example, if an item is known to be heavy, or identified as such via its RFID tag, then the item will desirably be located near the base of a pallet. For items that should be packed in a preferred orientation, e.g., one end up, two RFID tags could be attached to the item, or its package, to enable RFID determination of the item's orientation when placed on the pallet. For items that should be packed in an "up" orientation along with a particular rotational orientation, e.g., a damage-resistant side facing outward on the pallet, three RFID tags attached to an item would resolve both up-down and rotational orientations. In certain embodiments, two RFID tags are placed on an object to resolve its orientation in two dimensions, and three tags are place on an object to resolve its orientation in three dimensions. The use of multiple RFID tags on objects may become more common and widely used for packaged or boxed items, for which the tags are located on the package or box. In some embodiments, the RFID tags can be placed substantially at "grab" points on an item or package, and be used in automated packing to guide a robotic arm to grasp the item or package at the grab points. The inventive RFID system can be used to determine object orientation and object position, and to provide feedback-assisted pallet packing.”
An object can have three RFID tags on it, which together can give complete positional information.
Carrick further teaches at para 0137:
“In one embodiment, the RFID tag reader may produce and correlate multiple pairs of data sets from the same pair of tags from a plurality of reader locations to improve the accuracy of the proximity determination. In combination or alternatively, the RFID tag reader may have multiple antenna receivers that are spatially distributed to produce and correlate multiple pairs of data sets from the same pair of tags to improve the accuracy of the proximity determination.”
Thus, it is seen that the reader system which is coupled to the arms to guide the arms can effectively include multiple readers spatially distanced for better position determination.
Carrick fails to fully meet the newly added limitations of 4/22/2026, namely,
“wherein the alignment device measures an intensity of return signals from the plurality of RFID tags; and wherein the alignment device determines a pose of the robotic interface relative to the plane based on the intensity of the return signals and the triangular configuration of the at least three RFID tags.”
Troy et al. teaches (paragraphs 0003 to 0005):
“[0003] In some implementations, an apparatus includes a directional scanner configured to receive signals from at least three RFID tags at a plurality of orientations of the directional scanner. The apparatus includes a pose estimator configured to estimate a pose of a device that includes or is coupled to the directional scanner based on orientation data indicating orientations of the directional scanner associated with determined peak signal strengths associated with the at least three RFID tags.
[0004] In some implementations, a method includes receiving signals from at least three RFID tags at a plurality of orientations of a directional scanner. The method includes estimating a pose of a device that includes or that is coupled to the directional scanner based on orientation data indicating orientations of the directional scanner associated with determined peak signal strengths associated with the at least three RFID tags.
[0005] In some implementations, an apparatus includes means for receiving signals from at least three RFID tags at a plurality of orientations of the means for receiving signals. The apparatus additionally includes means for estimating a pose of a device that includes or that is coupled to the directional scanner based on orientation data indicating orientations of the means for receiving signals associated with determined peak signal strengths associated with the at least three RFID tags.”
Troy et al. further teaches at para 0021:
“[0021] The positioning system 100 includes a processor 106 configured to determine a pose of the device 102 relative to the object 108. In some examples, the device 102 includes the processor 106. In other examples, the device 102 is coupled to (e.g., communicatively coupled to) the processor 106. The processor 106 uses orientation angle data along with signal strength data to determine the three-dimensional (3D) positions of at least three RFID tags 124, 127, 128 relative to the device 102 as described in more detail below. The processor 106 is configured to compare those measured positions to known relative positions of the at least three RFID tags 124, 127, 128 within the known pattern on the object 108. The comparison uses a vector alignment process to determine the 3D location (i.e., position and orientation offset) of the device 102 relative to the known pattern.”
In view of the teachings of Troy et al., it would be obvious to improve the orientation information of Carrick using the three RFID tags along with their signal strengths as Carrick teaches in order to better achieve positioning in three dimensions.
Carrick already teaches most of the claimed elements and could be clearly improved through this improved three-dimensional placement.
There is already in Carrick (para 0194 and 0197) robotic arm placement guiding the arm in three dimensions to connect with an object using three RFID tags. So Troy et al.’s improvements of using signal strength of the tags in this context fits well.
Re claims 2-6 and 9:
The use of more than three tags, or the relative positions of the tag on the object, are a matter of obvious design choice, with more tags and better configurations making the positional identification of an object faster and easier. Three tags is a minimum for positional determination, but more tags can facilitate the process.
Re claim 7: Each of the three tags on an object would have a distinctive signal in order to allow full positional determination as Carrick has.
Re claim 8: It is seen at para 0095 that there is an intensity determination for a tag signal.
Re claim 14: See discussion above, and note that there is at para 0095 a strength determination for a tag.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known that signal strength information can contribute to location determination.
Re claim 15: As the above excerpts of Carrick show, Carrick’s position determination can be used to control the placement of a robotic arm.
Re claim 16: The use of more than three tags, or the relative positions of the tag on the object, are a matter of obvious design choice, with more tags and better configurations making the positional identification of an object faster and easier. Three tags is a minimum for positional determination, but more tags can facilitate the process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The examiner judges that the orientation and configuration of the tags on the object as recited in these claims is particular and specific enough to be non-obvious.
Although the examiner argued with respect to some of the claims above that some variation in tag configurations would have been obvious, these claims recited the position and configuration in enough detail that a particular locating method is facilitated which is only apparent in hindsight.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL A HESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 AM to 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G. Lee can be reached at (571)272-2398. 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.
/DANIEL A HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights