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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/19/2025.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application JP2024-100479 filed on 06/21/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the object is mounted on the robot”, this limitation contradicts with the teaching of claim 1 limitation “an object located between the robot and the transport robot, which renders the claim indefinite.
All claims dependent from the above claims are rejected for incorporating the deficiency by virtue of their dependencies.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Paskell (US11613321) in view of Fukuhara (US20200339205) and Vogel (US20210154840).
Regarding claim 1, Paskell teaches robot system, comprising:
a robot placed in a work area where work is performed on a workpiece (at least col. 6 lines 15-67 disclosing the robot placed in a work area where the work is performed on a vehicle chassis and body);
a transport robot that includes: a map of a specific area including the work area; and a sensor that detects surrounding conditions, the transport robot transporting the workpiece to the work area by autonomously traveling in the specific area while estimating its own position using the map and the sensor and stopping in the work area until the work on the workpiece is finished (col. 7 lines 30-67 disclosing the AMR travel to specific areas using the map and avoiding objects detected by sensors and determining own position. Col. 11 lines 5-67 disclosing the navigation of the AMR based on the sensors and objects and based on the location for the respective staging areas for processing carried objects such as vehicle body and chassis and waiting in the position while work is performed, see similar subject matter in col. 12 lines 1-67 disclosing the AMR moves to the desired location within the assembly area); and
Paskell does not teach an object located between the robot and the transport robot in the work area, the object being detected by the sensor and included as a wall in the map both when the transport robot creates the map of the specific area using the sensor and when the transport robot transports the workpiece using the map and the sensor.
Fukuhara teaches an object located between the robot and the transport ([0040]-[0060] disclosing the locators as objects between the transport conveyor and the robot).
Paskell and Fukuhara both teach transporting the object to a work robot to perform work on the robot, Paskell already teaches the transport vehicle instead of the conveyor, thus it would be obvious to combine the teaching of Fukuhara of the object between the robot and the transport robot in order to secure the transport vehicle in relation to the work robot for accurate work to be performed.
Vogel teaches the object being detected by the sensor and included as a wall in the map both when the transport robot creates the map of the specific area using the sensor and when the transport robot transports the workpiece using the map and the sensor ([0037] disclosing the use of sensors in order to map the obstacles along with their contour, i.e., walls of obstacles, in order to move the robot according to the distance kept away from contour to position in a target position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Vogel with the AMR navigation as taught by Paskell and the object as taught by Fukuhara thus in order to improve the navigation of the robot and the location of the robot using SLAM thus determining the location of objects in the environment and position the mobile robot along the contour of the objects thus improving accuracy of positioning the robot, determining a contour of the object as the locators is obvious improving the positioning of the AMR relative to the locators.
Regarding claim 9, Paskell as modified by Fukuhara and Vogel teaches the robot system of claim 1, wherein
Specifically, Fukuhara teaches the work area includes a first work area and a second work area (Fukuhara figure 7a-b shows different work areas, see [0033]-[0050] disclosing different areas of work and staging) and
the object in the first work area and the object in the second work area are arranged differently ([0033]-[0050] and figures 7-9 shows different orientations of the object locators).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Fukuhara in order to change an orientation of the object to improve the work and localize the workpiece according to work to be operated.
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, see above rejection.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Paskell (US11613321) in view of Fukuhara (US20200339205) and Vogel (US20210154840) and Hayashi (US20210323146).
Regarding claim 2, Paskell as modified by Fukuhara and Vogel teaches the robot system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the object is mounted on the robot.
Hayashi teaches wherein the object is mounted on the robot (abstract and [0018]-[0020] disclosing the markers as objects attached to the robot in order to allow the determination of 3d shape of the robot and objects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of Hayashi of object mounted on the robot in order to allow localization with respect to the shapes of the object thus improving localization and or for verification of the shape and comparison with map.
Regarding claim 3, Paskell as modified by Fukuhara and Vogel and Hayashi teaches the robot system of claim 2, wherein a work robot that performs work on the workpiece and a support robot that supports the workpiece delivered by the transport robot during the work of the work robot are placed in the work area, and the object is mounted on the support robot.
Specifically, Fukuhara teaches wherein a work robot that performs work on the workpiece and a support robot that supports the workpiece delivered by the transport robot during the work of the work robot are placed in the work area ([0040]-[0060] disclosing the locators as robotic devices that support the workpiece delivered by the transport system and the work robot that works on the workpiece), and
Paskell and Fukuhara both teach transporting the object to a work robot to perform work on the robot, Paskell already teaches the transport vehicle instead of the conveyor, thus it would be obvious to combine the teaching of Fukuhara of the object between the robot and the transport robot in order to secure the transport vehicle in relation to the work robot for accurate work to be performed.
the object is mounted on the robot (abstract and [0018]-[0020] disclosing the markers as objects attached to the robot in order to allow the determination of 3d shape of the robot and objects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of Hayashi of object mounted on the robot with the support robot as taught by Paskell as modified by Fukuhara and Vogel and Hayashi in order to allow localization with respect to the shapes of the object thus improving localization and or for verification of the shape and comparison with map.
Regarding claim 4, Paskell as modified by Fukuhara and Vogel and Hayashi teaches the robot system of claim 3, wherein the work robot is located laterally relative to the transport robot, in a first direction orthogonal to a traveling direction of the transport robot in the work area, and the support robot is located between the work robot and the transport robot.
Specifically, Fukuhara teaches wherein the work robot is located laterally relative to the transport robot, in a first direction orthogonal to a traveling direction of the transport robot in the work area, and the support robot is located between the work robot and the transport robot ([0040]-[0060] disclosing the locators as robotic devices that support the workpiece delivered by the transport system and the work robot that works on the workpiece, the location of the locators are lateral to the direction of the robot), and
Paskell and Fukuhara both teach transporting the object to a work robot to perform work on the robot, Paskell already teaches the transport vehicle instead of the conveyor, thus it would be obvious to combine the teaching of Fukuhara of the object between the robot and the transport robot in order to secure the transport vehicle in relation to the work robot for accurate work to be performed.
Regarding claim 5, Paskell as modified by Fukuhara and Vogel and Hayashi teaches the robot system of claim 4, wherein the work robot and the support robot are located on each of a first side and a second side of the transport robot in the first direction, and the object is mounted on the support robot on the first side and the support robot on the second side.
Specifically, Fukuhara teaches wherein the work robot and the support robot are located on each of a first side and a second side of the transport robot in the first direction ([0040]-[0060] disclosing the locators as robotic devices that support the workpiece delivered by the transport system and the work robot that works on the workpiece, the location of the locators are lateral to the direction of the robot and on both sides), and
Paskell and Fukuhara both teach transporting the object to a work robot to perform work on the robot, Paskell already teaches the transport vehicle instead of the conveyor, thus it would be obvious to combine the teaching of Fukuhara of the object between the robot and the transport robot in order to secure the transport vehicle in relation to the work robot for accurate work to be performed, and
Specifically, Hayashi teaches the object is mounted on the support robot on the robot (abstract and [0018]-[0020] disclosing the markers as objects attached to the robot in order to allow the determination of 3d shape of the robot and objects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of Hayashi of object mounted on the robot with the support robot as taught by Paskell on both sides as modified by Fukuhara and Vogel and Hayashi in order to allow localization with respect to the shapes of the object thus improving localization and or for verification of the shape and comparison with map.
Regarding claim 6, Paskell as modified by Fukuhara and Vogel and Hayashi teaches the robot system of claim 3, wherein the support robot is a three-axis orthogonal robot.
Specifically, Fukuhara teaches wherein the support robot is a three-axis orthogonal robot ([0040]-[0060] disclosing the locators as robotic devices that support the workpiece delivered by the transport system and the work robot that works on the workpiece, the location of the locators are lateral to the direction of the robot and on both sides. Fukuhara teaches the three dimensional control of pins to be effectuated to stabilize the workpiece), and
Paskell and Fukuhara both teach transporting the object to a work robot to perform work on the robot, Paskell already teaches the transport vehicle instead of the conveyor, thus it would be obvious to combine the teaching of Fukuhara of the object between the robot and the transport robot in order to secure the transport vehicle in relation to the work robot for accurate work to be performed,
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Paskell (US11613321) in view of Fukuhara (US20200339205) and Vogel (US20210154840) and Degirmenci (US20240077882).
Regarding claim 7, Paskell as modified by Fukuhara and Vogel teaches the robot system of claim 1, wherein
Degirmenci teaches the sensor is a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor ([0098] disclosing the Lidar measuring light reflected from objects), and
the object has a surface that reflects light ([0098] disclosing the Lidar measuring light reflected from objects, it is known that the Lidar detects reflected lights from objects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and or substitute the lidar measurements with the building of the map yielding predicable results and improving the depth detection of objects.
Regarding claim 8, Paskell as modified by Fukuhara and Vogel teaches the robot system of claim 7,
Specifically, Degirmenci teaches wherein the object has a first surface and a second surface ([0098]-[0100] disclosing the objects including clothing racks that are shown in the map of figure 10 as at least having two surfaces), and
the first surface and the second surface are at different angles when viewed from the transport robot ([0098]-[0100] disclosing the objects including clothing racks that are shown in the map of figure 10 as at least having two surfaces which are viewed differently by a robot as can be seen from the map and interpreted from the citation),.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and or substitute the lidar measurements with the building of the map yielding predicable results and improving the depth detection of objects and to allow localization of the robot based on the built map by knowing dimensions and locations of borders.
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Paskell (US11613321) in view of Fukuhara (US20200339205) and Vogel (US20210154840) and Kim (US20180162470).
Regarding claim 10, Paskell as modified by Fukuhara and Vogel teaches the robot system of claim 1, wherein
Kim teaches the object includes a first object and a second object with a different shape from the first object ([0060]-[0080] disclosing different object to hold the robt based on stage and vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Kim in order to differentiate between holding vehicles thus improving the work to be done based on each vehicle which improves accuracy of the results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US10059003 teaches recognizing a marker on the manipulator to determine the location on SLAM.
US20220215669 disclosing the shape becomes larger as the robot approaches the marker.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights