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 § 112
Claims 46, 53, and 60 are 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.
The term “high flow” in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high flow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus the claims are not particularly pointed out or distinctly claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 42, 45, 47, 49, 52, 54, 56, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvers et al (US Pub 4,604,787) hereafter known as Silvers in light of Franz et al (WO Pub 2014/040843 A1), hereafter known as Franz, please refer to attached translation, in light of Shen et al (US Pub 6,644,637 B1), hereafter known as Shen.
For Claim 42, Silvers teaches A programmable motion system comprising:
a programmable motion device that includes a robotic arm, the robotic arm having a robotic arm coupling to connect any one of a plurality of detachable end-effectors, the robotic arm having an operational reach; ((Column 3, Lines 29-63, Fig. 1 and 2 and 3, Column 4, Lines 29-38, Column 5, Lines 34-66, Figure 9)
a rack comprising a plurality of detachable end-effectors, the rack positioned within the operational reach; ((Column 3, Lines 29-63, Fig. 1 and 2 and 3, Column 4, Lines 29-38, Column 5, Lines 34-66, Figure 9)
the programmable motion device instructed to attach the selected one of the plurality of detachable end effectors from the rack by positioning the robotic arm coupling proximate the selected one of the plurality of detachable end effectors; ((Column 3, Lines 29-63, Fig. 1 and 2 and 3, Column 4, Lines 29-38, Column 5, Lines 34-66, Figure 9)
the programmable motion device instructed to subsequently position the end-effectors to grasp an object (Column 2, Lines 22-45)
the programmable motion device providing a lifting force to lift the object using the robotic arm with the selected one of the plurality of end effectors attached thereto. (Column 2, Lines 22-45)
Slivers does not teach a vacuum supply provided to the robotic arm coupling;
each of the plurality of detachable vacuum end-effectors having a vacuum cup and a coupling mechanism with an open interior for the flow of vacuum therethrough, the coupling mechanism adapted to mate to the robotic arm coupling using a magnetic force provided by at least one magnet on at least one of the robotic arm coupling and the coupling mechanism of a selected one of the plurality of detachable vacuum end effectors;
that the end effectors are attached using the magnetic force between the robotic arm coupling and the coupling mechanism
the programmable motion device instructed to subsequently position the vacuum cup of the selected one of the plurality of vacuum end-effectors to grasp an object using the vacuum supply to provide a vacuum force between the object and the vacuum cup; and
the programmable motion device providing a lifting force to lift the object using the robotic arm with the selected one of the plurality of vacuum end effectors attached thereto, wherein the magnetic force is less than the lifting force.
Franz, however, does teach a vacuum supply provided to the robotic arm coupling; (Figure 2, Figure 7, Page 4, Paragraphs 10-12, and 18)
each of the plurality of detachable vacuum end-effectors having a vacuum cup and a coupling mechanism with an open interior for the flow of vacuum therethrough, the coupling mechanism adapted to mate to the robotic arm coupling using a magnetic force provided by at least one magnet on at least one of the robotic arm coupling and the coupling mechanism of a selected one of the plurality of detachable vacuum end effectors; (Figure 2, Figure 7, Page 4, Paragraphs 10-12, and 18, Page 5 Paragraphs 5-9 )
the programmable motion device instructed to subsequently position the vacuum cup of the selected one of the plurality of vacuum end-effectors to grasp an object using the vacuum supply to provide a vacuum force between the object and the vacuum cup; and (Page 4, Paragraphs 8-12)
the programmable motion device providing a lifting force to lift the object using the robotic arm with the selected one of the plurality of vacuum end effectors attached thereto. (Page 4, Paragraphs 8-12)
that the end effectors are attached using the magnetic force between the robotic arm coupling and the coupling mechanism (Page 4, Paragraphs 8-12)
Shen, however, does teach that a low magnetic field may applied for holding and locating the clamping and support members so that members are not jerked towards surfaces. (Page 7, Column 5, Lines 21 to 50
Thus a relatively low magnetic field may be initially applied to assist in holding and locating the modular clamping 26 and support 24 members without jerking them to the surface 16 of the chuck. But the magnetic field can be substantially increased to strongly hold the modular pieces to the surface of the chuck. When it is time to reconfigure the workpiece fixture the magnetic field is partially turned off and the pieces removed.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in light of Shen such that wherein the magnetic force is less than the lifting force. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in this way because making the magnetic force small (smaller than a lifting force) would prevent damage when attaching the end effector to the robot by reducing sudden snapping movement. Additionally, it would reduce the amount of force necessary to uncouple the end effector when finished.
For Claim 45, Silvers teaches The programmable motion system as claimed in claim 42,
Silvers does not teach wherein the vacuum cup includes a flexible bellows.
Franz, however, does teach wherein the vacuum cup includes a flexible bellows. (Figure 2, Figure 7, Page 4, Paragraphs 10-12, and 18)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silver’s acquisition unit changing method with Franz’s use of vacuum suction tools with flexible bellows because vacuum suction tools with flexible bellows are known tools for robotic equipment to move and manipulate objects and parts, and it would be expected to be successful.
For Claim 47, Silvers teaches The programmable motion system as claimed in claim 42,
Silvers does not teach wherein the ferromagnetic end is an annular ring.
Franz, however, does teach wherein the ferromagnetic end is an annular ring. (Figures 5-7, Parts 20 and 21, the magnets, appear to be rings)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers such that the ferromagnetic ends are annular rings because it would allow an even distribution of the magnetic force between the end effector and robotic arm, especially if centered around the center of the connection.
For Claim 49, Silvers teaches A programmable motion system comprising:
a programmable motion device including a robotic arm, the robotic arm having a robotic arm coupling at a distal end; ((Column 3, Lines 29-63, Fig. 1 and 2 and 3, Column 4, Lines 29-38, Column 5, Lines 34-66, Figure 9)
a coupling mechanism at a second end of the central body, at least one of the robotic arm coupling; ((Column 3, Lines 29-63, Fig. 1 and 2 and 3, Column 4, Lines 29-38, Column 5, Lines 34-66, Figure 9)
Silvers does not teach a vacuum supply; (Figure 2, Figure 7, Page 4, Paragraphs 10-12, and 18)
a vacuum end-effector for the robotic arm comprising: (Figure 2, Figure 7, Page 4, Paragraphs 10-12, and 18)
a central body having an open interior; (Figure 2, Figure 7, Page 4, Paragraphs 10-12, and 18)
a vacuum cup at a first end of the central body; (Figure 2, Figure 7, Page 4, Paragraphs 10-12, and 18)
and the coupling mechanism including a magnet such that the magnetic coupling attaches to the robotic arm coupling with a magnetic attachment force Page 5 Paragraphs 5-9
the vacuum supply providing a vacuum force at the vacuum cup when an object is grasped thereto,. (Page 4, Paragraphs 8-12)
Shen, however, does teach that a low magnetic field may applied for holding and locating the clamping and support members so that members are not jerked towards surfaces. (Page 7, Column 5, Lines 21 to 50
Thus a relatively low magnetic field may be initially applied to assist in holding and locating the modular clamping 26 and support 24 members without jerking them to the surface 16 of the chuck. But the magnetic field can be substantially increased to strongly hold the modular pieces to the surface of the chuck. When it is time to reconfigure the workpiece fixture the magnetic field is partially turned off and the pieces removed.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in light of Shen such that the magnetic attachment force being less than the vacuum force. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in this way because making the magnetic force small (smaller than a lifting force) would prevent damage when attaching the end effector to the robot by reducing sudden snapping movement. Additionally, it would reduce the amount of force necessary to uncouple the end effector when finished.
For Claim 52, Silvers teaches The programmable motion system as claimed in claim 49,
Silvers does not teach wherein the vacuum cup includes a flexible bellows.
Franz, however, does teach wherein the vacuum cup includes a flexible bellows. (Figure 2, Figure 7, Page 4, Paragraphs 10-12, and 18)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silver’s acquisition unit changing method with Franz’s use of vacuum suction tools with flexible bellows because vacuum suction tools with flexible bellows are known tools for robotic equipment to move and manipulate objects and parts, and it would be expected to be successful.
For Claim 54, Silvers teaches The programmable motion system as claimed in claim 49,
Silvers does not teach wherein the one of the robotic arm coupling and the coupling mechanism includes an annular ring.
Franz, however, does teach wherein the one of the robotic arm coupling and the coupling mechanism includes an annular ring. (Figures 5-7, Parts 20 and 21, the magnets, appear to be rings)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers such that the ferromagnetic ends are annular rings because it would allow an even distribution of the magnetic force between the end effector and robotic arm, especially if centered around the center of the connection.
For Claim 56, Silvers teaches A method of providing the processing of objects, said method comprising:
providing a plurality of end-effectors on an acquisition unit rack, each end-effector of the plurality of end-effectors capable of being attached to a distal end of a robotic arm; ((Column 3, Lines 29-63, Fig. 1 and 2 and 3, Column 4, Lines 29-38, Column 5, Lines 34-66, Figure 9)
Silvers does not teach Vacuum cup end effectors
selecting one of the plurality of end-effectors provided on the acquisition unit rack;
coupling the selected vacuum cup end-effectors to the distal end of the robotic arm using a magnetic force between the selected vacuum cup and the robotic arm; and
grasping the object with the selected vacuum cup end-effector using the vacuum supply and applying a lifting force by the robotic arm, wherein the magnetic force is less than the lifting force.
Franz, however, does teach Vacuum cup end effectors(Figure 2, Figure 7, Page 4, Paragraphs 10-12, and 18, Page 5 Paragraphs 5-9 )
selecting one of the plurality of end-effectors provided on the acquisition unit rack; (Page 3, Paragraph 14)
coupling the selected vacuum cup end-effectors to the distal end of the robotic arm using a magnetic force between the selected vacuum cup and the robotic arm; and(Figure 2, Figure 7, Page 4, Paragraphs 10-12, and 18, Page 5 Paragraphs 5-9 )
grasping the object with the selected vacuum cup end-effector using the vacuum supply and applying a lifting force by the robotic arm,. (Page 4, Paragraphs 8-12)
Shen, however, does teach that a low magnetic field may applied for holding and locating the clamping and support members so that members are not jerked towards surfaces. (Page 7, Column 5, Lines 21 to 50
Thus a relatively low magnetic field may be initially applied to assist in holding and locating the modular clamping 26 and support 24 members without jerking them to the surface 16 of the chuck. But the magnetic field can be substantially increased to strongly hold the modular pieces to the surface of the chuck. When it is time to reconfigure the workpiece fixture the magnetic field is partially turned off and the pieces removed.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in light of Shen such that wherein the magnetic force is less than the lifting force. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in this way because making the magnetic force small (smaller than a lifting force) would prevent damage when attaching the end effector to the robot by reducing sudden snapping movement. Additionally, it would reduce the amount of force necessary to uncouple the end effector when finished.
For Claim 58, Silvers teaches The method as claimed in claim 56,
Silvers does not teach wherein the vacuum cup includes a flexible bellows.
Franz, however, does teach wherein the vacuum cup includes a flexible bellows. (Figure 2, Figure 7, Page 4, Paragraphs 10-12, and 18)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silver’s acquisition unit changing method with Franz’s use of vacuum suction tools with flexible bellows because vacuum suction tools with flexible bellows are known tools for robotic equipment to move and manipulate objects and parts, and it would be expected to be successful.
Claims 43-44, 50-51, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvers in light of Franz in light of Shen in light of Stagnitto et al (US Pub 5,993,365), hereafter known as Stagnitto.
For Claim 43, Silvers teaches The programmable motion system as claimed in claim 42,
Silvers does not teach wherein the at least one magnet is provided among a plurality of magnets provided on each of the coupling mechanism and the robotic arm coupling.
Stagnitto, however, does teach wherein the at least one magnet is provided among a plurality of magnets provided on each of the coupling mechanism of the rack and the robotic arm coupling. (Page 13 Column 1, Line 65 to Column 2 Line 32
(12) Briefly stated, the foregoing and numerous other features, objects and advantages of the present invention will become readily apparent upon the reading of the detailed description, claims and drawings set forth herein. These features, objects and advantages are accomplished by using permanent magnets in the tooling attachment block of a robotic arm to provide the attractive forces necessary for holding ferrous metal adapter plates on which tools are mounted. A series of tools are held at predetermined locations in a tool rack allowing the robot to automatically deposit therein or acquire therefrom a particular tool. The permanent magnets are mounted between steel inserts in the tool attachment block located on the end of the robotic arm. These steel inserts are used to direct and concentrate magnetic flux to the tool attachment surface of a tool and also to each of two shunt bar contact surfaces. During the attach and disconnect operations, magnetic flux shunt bars are placed in close proximity to the two shunt bar contact surfaces to thereby provide an alternative path for the magnetic flux. This greatly reduces but does not eliminate the attractive force between the tool adapter plate and the attachment block. This results in a relatively easy disconnect of a particular tool with its associated adapter plate thus allowing a simple, inexpensive, low force capability device to be used for controlling the disconnect process. In other words, the tools can be changed without having to overcome the normal attachment force. However, there will remain enough residual attractive force to keep the adapter plate from failing off of the attachment block in an uncontrolled manner. This residual attachment force aids in maintaining alignment control of any tool being deposited in or acquired from the tool rack. Each tool location in the tool rack includes shunt bar slots on each side thereof to provide residence for the shunt bars when a tool is either being deposited in or acquired from that particular location.
Page 15, Column 5 Line 29 to Column 6 Line 28) (9) Turning next to FIGS. 9 to 21, there is schematically depicted a tool change sequence. For purposes of clarity and simplicity, such schematic drawings show only two tool slots 18 and show only a single gripper finger tool with a coupling tool adapter plate 54 and tool attachment block 14. The tool interface portion 12 and the robotic arm are not shown. As depicted in FIGS. 9 and 10 the robotic arm (not shown) with the tool attachment block 14 having a tool adapter plate 54 and tool 20 connected thereto delivers the tool adapter plate 54 and associated tool 20 to a tool slot 18 by approaching tool slot 18 from a horizontal plane moving in the direction indicated by arrow 72. The robotic arm controls the height at which tool adapter plate 54 is held such that groove 62 aligns with tongue 32. In such manner, tongues 32 of a particular tool slot 18 insert into grooves 62 on each side of tool adapter plate 54 thereby capturing tool adapter plate and its associated tool 20, 21 in tool slot 18. Ball plungers 70 insert into grooves 68 to aid in retaining tool adapter plate 54 in the proper position within tool slot 18. In this proper position, the lips 60 of the magnetic shunt bars 16 residing on each side of that tool slot 18 reside in slots 18 of tool attachment block 14. Magnetic shunt bars 16 actually contact the sides of tool attachment block 14. The magnetic shunt bars 16 serve to shunt the magnetic force which attaches tool adapter plate 54 to tool attachment block 14 such that the majority of the magnetic force from magnets 42 is now directed through shunt bars 16. In other words, an alternative path for the magnetic flux is provided which greatly reduces but does not eliminate the attractive force between the tool attachment block 14 and the tool adapter plate 54. The proper positioning of tool attachment block 14 and tool adapter plate 54 in a tool slot 18 is depicted in FIGS. 11 to 13. In order to leave a tool adapter plate 54 and its associated tool 20 in a tool slot 18, the robotic arm lifts vertically as denoted by arrow 74 (see FIGS. 14 and 15). With the shunt bars 16 magnetically attached to tool attachment block 14, relatively little force is needed to separate tool attachment block 14 from tool adapter plate 54. In such manner, the particular tool 20 is left in its associated tool slot 18 with tongues 32 residing in slots 62. The robotic arm is now free to move the tool attachment block 14 with shunt bars 16 magnetically attached thereto to a different tool slot 18 to acquire a different tool. As depicted in FIGS. 16 and 17, in order to acquire a tool from the tool rack 10 the robotic arm (not shown) moves directly over the tool slot 18 in which the desired tool is supported. The robotic arm lowers the tool attachment block 14 such that alignment pins 64 insert into alignment openings 66. In addition, shunt bars 16 insert into recesses 26 in each block 24 adjacent that particular tool slot 18. Movement of the tool attachment block 14 vertically downward is designated by arrow 76. With the tool attachment block 14 mated with the tool adapter plate 54 the new tool, as depicted in FIG. 18 and 19, the new tool can be extracted from its associated tool slot 18. In order to remove a tool from its associated tool slot 18, the robotic arm moves horizontally out of tool slot 18 as shown by arrow 78 (see FIGS. 20 and 21). By moving horizontally, shunt bars 16 are retained in their associated recesses 26 which tool attachment block 14 and tool adapter plate 54 move out of tool slot 18 such that tongues 32 no longer reside in slots 62. Once free of the tool slot 18, the robotic arm is free to move the arm the acquired tool to perform any required work therewith. With the shunt bars 16 removed, full magnetic attachment between tool attachment block 14 and tool adapter plate 54 is accomplished. This magnetic attachment force is all that is needed to perform work with the acquired tool.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in light of Stagnitto such that wherein the at least one magnet is provided among a plurality of magnets provided on each of the coupling mechanism and the robotic arm coupling.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in this way because a number of different magnets could be used in place of a larger magnet (in situations in which it is easier to manufacture and attach smaller magnets) and it would allow the use of more decision making when determining how the magnetic forces are directed. Multiple magnets would be expected to be successful at creating ferromagnetic forces, and it would allow the designer to find locations to place the magnets closer together and at more locations than would be possible with a single magnet.
For Claim 44, Silvers teaches The programmable motion system as claimed in claim 43,
Silvers does not teach wherein the plurality of magnets are arranged with a polarity of the plurality of magnets influencing an alignment of the detachable vacuum end effectors relative to the robot arm.
Franz, however, does teach wherein the plurality of magnets are arranged with a polarity of the plurality of magnets influencing an alignment of the detachable vacuum end effectors relative to the robot arm. (Page 5, Paragraph 5, The base body 9 now has a magnet 20 and the gripper attachments 11 each have a magnet 21. The magnets 20 and 21 are designed as permanent magnets and arranged with reverse N / S polarity, which is why the magnetic force of the magnets 20 and 21 pulls the gripper attachment 11 to the base body 9 or coupled. As a result, the advantage is obtained that neither in the base body 9 still in the gripper attachment 11 a)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in light of Franz such that the magnets are arranged with a plurality of the magnets influencing the alignment because the position will affect how the forces between the effector and the robot interact, which would either make it easier to couple, or potentially more difficult if the alignment is not correct.
For Claim 50, Silvers teaches The programmable motion system as claimed in claim 49, wherein the at least one magnet is provided as one of a plurality of magnets and the magnet force is applied by the plurality of magnets provided among the coupling mechanism and the coupling.
Silvers does not teach wherein the at least one magnet is provided as one of a plurality of magnets and the magnet force is applied by the plurality of magnets provided among the coupling mechanism and the coupling.
Stagnitto, however, does teach wherein the at least one magnet is provided as one of a plurality of magnets and the magnet force is applied by the plurality of magnets provided among the rack mechanism and the coupling. (Page 13 Column 1, Line 65 to Column 2 Line 32
(12) Briefly stated, the foregoing and numerous other features, objects and advantages of the present invention will become readily apparent upon the reading of the detailed description, claims and drawings set forth herein. These features, objects and advantages are accomplished by using permanent magnets in the tooling attachment block of a robotic arm to provide the attractive forces necessary for holding ferrous metal adapter plates on which tools are mounted. A series of tools are held at predetermined locations in a tool rack allowing the robot to automatically deposit therein or acquire therefrom a particular tool. The permanent magnets are mounted between steel inserts in the tool attachment block located on the end of the robotic arm. These steel inserts are used to direct and concentrate magnetic flux to the tool attachment surface of a tool and also to each of two shunt bar contact surfaces. During the attach and disconnect operations, magnetic flux shunt bars are placed in close proximity to the two shunt bar contact surfaces to thereby provide an alternative path for the magnetic flux. This greatly reduces but does not eliminate the attractive force between the tool adapter plate and the attachment block. This results in a relatively easy disconnect of a particular tool with its associated adapter plate thus allowing a simple, inexpensive, low force capability device to be used for controlling the disconnect process. In other words, the tools can be changed without having to overcome the normal attachment force. However, there will remain enough residual attractive force to keep the adapter plate from failing off of the attachment block in an uncontrolled manner. This residual attachment force aids in maintaining alignment control of any tool being deposited in or acquired from the tool rack. Each tool location in the tool rack includes shunt bar slots on each side thereof to provide residence for the shunt bars when a tool is either being deposited in or acquired from that particular location.
Page 15, Column 5 Line 29 to Column 6 Line 28) (9) Turning next to FIGS. 9 to 21, there is schematically depicted a tool change sequence. For purposes of clarity and simplicity, such schematic drawings show only two tool slots 18 and show only a single gripper finger tool with a coupling tool adapter plate 54 and tool attachment block 14. The tool interface portion 12 and the robotic arm are not shown. As depicted in FIGS. 9 and 10 the robotic arm (not shown) with the tool attachment block 14 having a tool adapter plate 54 and tool 20 connected thereto delivers the tool adapter plate 54 and associated tool 20 to a tool slot 18 by approaching tool slot 18 from a horizontal plane moving in the direction indicated by arrow 72. The robotic arm controls the height at which tool adapter plate 54 is held such that groove 62 aligns with tongue 32. In such manner, tongues 32 of a particular tool slot 18 insert into grooves 62 on each side of tool adapter plate 54 thereby capturing tool adapter plate and its associated tool 20, 21 in tool slot 18. Ball plungers 70 insert into grooves 68 to aid in retaining tool adapter plate 54 in the proper position within tool slot 18. In this proper position, the lips 60 of the magnetic shunt bars 16 residing on each side of that tool slot 18 reside in slots 18 of tool attachment block 14. Magnetic shunt bars 16 actually contact the sides of tool attachment block 14. The magnetic shunt bars 16 serve to shunt the magnetic force which attaches tool adapter plate 54 to tool attachment block 14 such that the majority of the magnetic force from magnets 42 is now directed through shunt bars 16. In other words, an alternative path for the magnetic flux is provided which greatly reduces but does not eliminate the attractive force between the tool attachment block 14 and the tool adapter plate 54. The proper positioning of tool attachment block 14 and tool adapter plate 54 in a tool slot 18 is depicted in FIGS. 11 to 13. In order to leave a tool adapter plate 54 and its associated tool 20 in a tool slot 18, the robotic arm lifts vertically as denoted by arrow 74 (see FIGS. 14 and 15). With the shunt bars 16 magnetically attached to tool attachment block 14, relatively little force is needed to separate tool attachment block 14 from tool adapter plate 54. In such manner, the particular tool 20 is left in its associated tool slot 18 with tongues 32 residing in slots 62. The robotic arm is now free to move the tool attachment block 14 with shunt bars 16 magnetically attached thereto to a different tool slot 18 to acquire a different tool. As depicted in FIGS. 16 and 17, in order to acquire a tool from the tool rack 10 the robotic arm (not shown) moves directly over the tool slot 18 in which the desired tool is supported. The robotic arm lowers the tool attachment block 14 such that alignment pins 64 insert into alignment openings 66. In addition, shunt bars 16 insert into recesses 26 in each block 24 adjacent that particular tool slot 18. Movement of the tool attachment block 14 vertically downward is designated by arrow 76. With the tool attachment block 14 mated with the tool adapter plate 54 the new tool, as depicted in FIG. 18 and 19, the new tool can be extracted from its associated tool slot 18. In order to remove a tool from its associated tool slot 18, the robotic arm moves horizontally out of tool slot 18 as shown by arrow 78 (see FIGS. 20 and 21). By moving horizontally, shunt bars 16 are retained in their associated recesses 26 which tool attachment block 14 and tool adapter plate 54 move out of tool slot 18 such that tongues 32 no longer reside in slots 62. Once free of the tool slot 18, the robotic arm is free to move the arm the acquired tool to perform any required work therewith. With the shunt bars 16 removed, full magnetic attachment between tool attachment block 14 and tool adapter plate 54 is accomplished. This magnetic attachment force is all that is needed to perform work with the acquired tool.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in light of Stagnitto such that wherein the at least one magnet is provided as one of a plurality of magnets and the magnet force is applied by the plurality of magnets provided among the coupling mechanism and the coupling.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in this way because a number of different magnets could be used in place of a larger magnet (in situations in which it is easier to manufacture and attach smaller magnets) and it would allow the use of more decision making when determining how the magnetic forces are directed. Multiple magnets would be expected to be successful at creating ferromagnetic forces, and it would allow the designer to find locations to place the magnets closer together and at more locations than would be possible with a single magnet.
For Claim 51, Silvers teaches The programmable motion system as claimed in claim 50,
Silvers does not teach wherein the plurality of magnets are arranged with a polarity of the plurality of magnets influencing an alignment of the detachable vacuum end effectors relative to the robot arm.
Franz, however, does teach wherein the plurality of magnets are arranged with a polarity of the plurality of magnets influencing an alignment of the detachable vacuum end effectors relative to the robot arm. (Page 5, Paragraph 5, The base body 9 now has a magnet 20 and the gripper attachments 11 each have a magnet 21. The magnets 20 and 21 are designed as permanent magnets and arranged with reverse N / S polarity, which is why the magnetic force of the magnets 20 and 21 pulls the gripper attachment 11 to the base body 9 or coupled. As a result, the advantage is obtained that neither in the base body 9 still in the gripper attachment 11 a)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in light of Franz such that the magnets are arranged with a plurality of the magnets influencing the alignment because the position will affect how the forces between the effector and the robot interact, which would either make it easier to couple, or potentially more difficult if the alignment is not correct.
For Claim 61, Silvers teaches The method as claimed in claim 56,
Silvers does not explicitly teach further comprising returning the selected one of the plurality of vacuum cup end-effectors to the acquisition unit rack.
Stagnitto, however, does teach further comprising returning the selected one of the plurality of vacuum cup end-effectors to the acquisition unit rack. (Page 13, Column 1 Line 65 to Column 2 Line 31,
(12) Briefly stated, the foregoing and numerous other features, objects and advantages of the present invention will become readily apparent upon the reading of the detailed description, claims and drawings set forth herein. These features, objects and advantages are accomplished by using permanent magnets in the tooling attachment block of a robotic arm to provide the attractive forces necessary for holding ferrous metal adapter plates on which tools are mounted. A series of tools are held at predetermined locations in a tool rack allowing the robot to automatically deposit therein or acquire therefrom a particular tool. The permanent magnets are mounted between steel inserts in the tool attachment block located on the end of the robotic arm. These steel inserts are used to direct and concentrate magnetic flux to the tool attachment surface of a tool and also to each of two shunt bar contact surfaces. During the attach and disconnect operations, magnetic flux shunt bars are placed in close proximity to the two shunt bar contact surfaces to thereby provide an alternative path for the magnetic flux. This greatly reduces but does not eliminate the attractive force between the tool adapter plate and the attachment block. This results in a relatively easy disconnect of a particular tool with its associated adapter plate thus allowing a simple, inexpensive, low force capability device to be used for controlling the disconnect process. In other words, the tools can be changed without having to overcome the normal attachment force. However, there will remain enough residual attractive force to keep the adapter plate from failing off of the attachment block in an uncontrolled manner. This residual attachment force aids in maintaining alignment control of any tool being deposited in or acquired from the tool rack. Each tool location in the tool rack includes shunt bar slots on each side thereof to provide residence for the shunt bars when a tool is either being deposited in or acquired from that particular location.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in light of Stagnitto such that the end effector is returned to the rack because if the end effectors are not removed from the robotic arm, then the exchanger can only be used one automatically. Additionally, by returning the tool to the rack, other future operations, including ones with potentially other robotic arms, will know where to find the desired tool.
Claims 46, 53, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvers in light of Franz in light of Shen in light of Hufken et al (US Pub 6,213,528 B1), hereafter known as Hufken.
For Claim 46, Silvers teaches The programmable motion system as claimed in claim 42,
Silvers does not teach wherein the vacuum supply is a high flow vacuum.
Hufken, however, does teach wherein the vacuum supply is a high flow vacuum. (Page 4, Column 2 Lines 1 to 7,
(3) The body 5 comprises a gas inlet unit 8, which is provided with a high gas flow conductance channel 7. The high gas flow conductance channel 7 comprises an inlet opening 9, which communicates with the ambient air, and an opening 13 communicating with the vacuum chamber 3. The inlet opening 9 has a surface area A3 and the opening 13 has a surface area A2.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in light of Hufken such that the vacuum supply is a high flow vacuum because a high flow would ensure there is a strong vacuum within the channel, which may be necessary in order to create a stronger suction force between the gripper and the object being gripped. If the flow was low flow, the suction force may be too weak in order to grasp object.
For Claim 53, Silvers teaches The programmable motion system as claimed in claim 49,
Silvers does not teach wherein the vacuum supply is a high flow vacuum.
Hufken, however, does teach wherein the vacuum supply is a high flow vacuum. (Page 4, Column 2 Lines 1 to 7,
(3) The body 5 comprises a gas inlet unit 8, which is provided with a high gas flow conductance channel 7. The high gas flow conductance channel 7 comprises an inlet opening 9, which communicates with the ambient air, and an opening 13 communicating with the vacuum chamber 3. The inlet opening 9 has a surface area A3 and the opening 13 has a surface area A2.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in light of Hufken such that the vacuum supply is a high flow vacuum because a high flow would ensure there is a strong vacuum within the channel, which may be necessary in order to create a stronger suction force between the gripper and the object being gripped. If the flow was low flow, the suction force may be too weak in order to grasp object.
For Claim 60, Silvers teaches The method as claimed in claim 56,
Silvers does not teach wherein the vacuum supply is a high flow vacuum and the selected one of the plurality of vacuum cups is drawn to the robotic arm by a vacuum force created by the vacuum supply when the object is grasped.
Franz, however, does teach wherein the vacuum supply is a vacuum and the selected one of the plurality of vacuum cups is drawn to the robotic arm by a vacuum force created by the vacuum supply when the object is grasped. (Page 4, Paragraph 12,
Pressure cylinders 6 are connected. For gripping or sucking a package P controls a control of the gripping system 1, not shown in Figure 2 kinematics to the correct position and kinks the articulated arm 4 from the position of the package P, whereby the Saugbalg SB to lie on a surface of the package P. comes. Subsequently, the suction bellows SB is subjected to negative pressure and sucks the package P against the supports 5. After the kinematics has transported with the gripping system 1 and the sucked package P to the picking crate, the negative pressure is released from the suction bellows SB and the package P falls into the order picking crate or is placed orderly in the picking crate.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in light of Franz so that the vacuum cup Is drawn into the robotic arm when grasping an object because it would be a natural result of a strong upwards force being pressed against the suction cup, and it would assist in holding the end effector to the robotic arm. This would allow the end effector to hold larger objects without a stronger magnetic or mechanical connection to the robotic arm.
Hufken, however, does teach wherein the vacuum supply is a high flow vacuum. (Page 4, Column 2 Lines 1 to 7,
(3) The body 5 comprises a gas inlet unit 8, which is provided with a high gas flow conductance channel 7. The high gas flow conductance channel 7 comprises an inlet opening 9, which communicates with the ambient air, and an opening 13 communicating with the vacuum chamber 3. The inlet opening 9 has a surface area A3 and the opening 13 has a surface area A2.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in light of Hufken such that the vacuum supply is a high flow vacuum because a high flow would ensure there is a strong vacuum within the channel, which may be necessary in order to create a stronger suction force between the gripper and the object being gripped. If the flow was low flow, the suction force may be too weak in order to grasp object.
Claims 48, 55, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvers in light of Franz in light of Shen in light of Brudniok et al (US Pub 2018/0281202 A1), hereafter known as Brudniok.
For Claim 48, Silvers teaches The programmable motion system as claimed in claim 42,
Silvers does not teach further comprising a force torque sensor on the programmable motion device to provide data regarding forces applied to the detachable vacuum end effector with respect to the robotic arm.
Brudniok, however, does teach further comprising a force torque sensor on the programmable motion device to provide data regarding forces applied to the joints with respect to the robotic arm. ([0010] Such a robot arm or such a lightweight robot has preferably more than six degrees of freedom, so that in this respect an overdetermined system is provided, as a result of which the same point in space in the same orientation can be reached in multiple, in particular even an infinite number of different poses of the robot arm. The lightweight robot can respond to external force effects in appropriate ways. In order to measure the force, it is possible to use torque sensors, which are mounted on the joints. These torque sensors can detect or, more specifically, measure the torques or forces in several spatial directions. As an alternative or in addition, the external forces can also be calculated even without sensors, for example, on the basis of the measured motor currents of the drives at the joints of the lightweight robot. As control concepts, it is possible to use, for example, an indirect force control by modeling the lightweight robot as a mechanical resistance (impedance) or a direct force control.
[0011] In the same way a SCARA robot may also have torque sensors, which are disposed in each case on the joints and which can detect or rather measure the torques and forces in several spatial directions. As an alternative or in addition, the external forces in a SCARA robot can also be calculated without sensors, for example, on the basis of the measured motor currents of the drive motors at the joints of the SCARA robot.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in light of Brudniok such that further comprising a force torque sensor on the programmable motion device to provide data regarding forces applied to the detachable vacuum end effector with respect to the robotic arm.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in this way because knowing the forces and torques at joints and connections is useful for understanding the kinesthetics of a robot’s motion, as well as predicting and preventing mechanical failures due to over stress. By having sensors detect the torque, the robot would know if the joint between the robot and the end effector is close to failing. It may also provide useful information for coupling and decoupling.
For Claim 55, Silvers teaches The programmable motion system as claimed in claim 49,
Silvers does not teach further comprising a force torque sensor on the programmable motion device to provide data regarding forces applied to the vacuum end-effector with respect to the robotic arm.
Brudniok, however, does teach further comprising a force torque sensor on the programmable motion device to provide data regarding forces applied to the joints with respect to the robotic arm. ([0010] Such a robot arm or such a lightweight robot has preferably more than six degrees of freedom, so that in this respect an overdetermined system is provided, as a result of which the same point in space in the same orientation can be reached in multiple, in particular even an infinite number of different poses of the robot arm. The lightweight robot can respond to external force effects in appropriate ways. In order to measure the force, it is possible to use torque sensors, which are mounted on the joints. These torque sensors can detect or, more specifically, measure the torques or forces in several spatial directions. As an alternative or in addition, the external forces can also be calculated even without sensors, for example, on the basis of the measured motor currents of the drives at the joints of the lightweight robot. As control concepts, it is possible to use, for example, an indirect force control by modeling the lightweight robot as a mechanical resistance (impedance) or a direct force control.
[0011] In the same way a SCARA robot may also have torque sensors, which are disposed in each case on the joints and which can detect or rather measure the torques and forces in several spatial directions. As an alternative or in addition, the external forces in a SCARA robot can also be calculated without sensors, for example, on the basis of the measured motor currents of the drive motors at the joints of the SCARA robot.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in light of Brudniok such that further comprising a force torque sensor on the programmable motion device to provide data regarding forces applied to the detachable vacuum end effector with respect to the robotic arm.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in this way because knowing the forces and torques at joints and connections is useful for understanding the kinesthetics of a robot’s motion, as well as predicting and preventing mechanical failures due to over stress. By having sensors detect the torque, the robot would know if the joint between the robot and the end effector is close to failing. It may also provide useful information for coupling and decoupling.
For Claim 57, Silvers teaches The method as claimed in claim 56,
Silvers does not teach wherein a force torque sensor provides data regarding forces applied to the selected vacuum cup with respect to the robotic arm.
Brudniok, however, does teach wherein a force torque sensor provides data regarding forces applied to the joints with respect to the robotic arm.
([0010] Such a robot arm or such a lightweight robot has preferably more than six degrees of freedom, so that in this respect an overdetermined system is provided, as a result of which the same point in space in the same orientation can be reached in multiple, in particular even an infinite number of different poses of the robot arm. The lightweight robot can respond to external force effects in appropriate ways. In order to measure the force, it is possible to use torque sensors, which are mounted on the joints. These torque sensors can detect or, more specifically, measure the torques or forces in several spatial directions. As an alternative or in addition, the external forces can also be calculated even without sensors, for example, on the basis of the measured motor currents of the drives at the joints of the lightweight robot. As control concepts, it is possible to use, for example, an indirect force control by modeling the lightweight robot as a mechanical resistance (impedance) or a direct force control.
[0011] In the same way a SCARA robot may also have torque sensors, which are disposed in each case on the joints and which can detect or rather measure the torques and forces in several spatial directions. As an alternative or in addition, the external forces in a SCARA robot can also be calculated without sensors, for example, on the basis of the measured motor currents of the drive motors at the joints of the SCARA robot.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in light of Brudniok such that wherein a force torque sensor provides data regarding forces applied to the selected vacuum cup with respect to the robotic arm.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in this way because knowing the forces and torques at joints and connections is useful for understanding the kinesthetics of a robot’s motion, as well as predicting and preventing mechanical failures due to over stress. By having sensors detect the torque, the robot would know if the joint between the robot and the end effector is close to failing. It may also provide useful information for coupling and decoupling.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvers in light of Franz in light of Shen in light of Denkmeier et al (US Pub 2013/0203572 A1), hereafter known as Denkmeier.
For Claim 59, Silvers teaches The method as claimed in claim 56,
Silvers does not teach wherein the step of selecting one of the plurality of vacuum cup end-effectors includes detecting an identity of at least one of the plurality of vacuum cup end effectors.
Denkmeier, however, does teach wherein the step of selecting one of the plurality of vacuum cup end-effectors includes detecting an identity of at least one of the plurality of vacuum cup end effectors. ([0049])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Silvers in light of Denkmeier so that the selecting involves detecting an identity of the plurality of end effectors because it would allow the system to ensure that the robotic arm is connecting to the correct tool. If there are particular tools for particular tasks, ensuring that the correct tool is connected prior to a particular task would help ensure successfully performing the task, and assist in preventing potential damage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cotsman et al (US Pub 4,995,493) relates to a tool changer.
Alber et al (US Pub 2018/0222061 A1), relates to a machine that changes vacuum tips on a robotic end effector.
Ojalehto et al (US Pub 2016/0089792 A1) relates to end effectors that are attached with magnets.
Hennekes et al (US Pub 4,512,709) relates to a tool changing system for a robot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRISTAN J GREINER whose telephone number is (571)272-1382. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on Monday-Thursday. 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.
/T.J.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights