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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-24 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite determining at least one object to be loaded onto the cart, the at least one object being at a first location on the floor of the building. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as object data and its location could determine at least one object to be loaded onto the cart, the at least one object being at a first location on the floor of the building. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of obtaining data regarding potential obstacles in an area surrounding a robotic cart, the robotic cart being located on a floor of a building; maneuvering the cart amongst the obstacles, without contacting any of the obstacles, to the first location; loading, using a robotic arm, the at least one object onto the cart; maneuvering the cart to a second location without contacting any of the obstacles; and unloading, using the robotic arm, the at least one object at the second location; and a controller. The obtaining step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (object data, location data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The maneuvering, loading, and unloading steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations do not positively recite the maneuvering or loading/unloading being performed by the controller or automatically. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this could be done manually and does not integrate the claim into a practical application. The additional limitation(s) of a controller is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the obtaining, maneuvering, loading, and unloading steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-12 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 1-2, 6-7, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20250315063) in view of Correll et al (US 20190381670 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Lee disclose a method for transporting objects using a robotic cart (see at least [abstract]) comprising the steps of: obtaining, by a controller, data regarding potential obstacles in an area surrounding a robotic cart (see at least [0047-0048], and [0081]), the robotic cart being located on a floor of a building (see at least (see at least [0121], [0225], [0227], and [0307]); determining at least one object to be loaded onto the cart (see at least [0153-0155]), the at least one object being at a first location on the floor of the building (see at least [0130], [0140-0141], and [0153-0155]); maneuvering the cart amongst the obstacles, without contacting any of the obstacles, to the first location (see at least [0047-0048] and [0213]); loading, the at least one object onto the cart (see at least [0153-0155]); maneuvering the cart to a second location without contacting any of the obstacles (see at least [0047-0048, [0250], [0213], [0260-0269], and [0311]); and unloading, the at least one object at the second location (see at least [0097]).
However, Lee does not specifically disclose that the loading and unloading of the at least one object is done using a robotic arm.
Correll discloses that the loading and unloading of the at least one object is done using a robotic arm (see at least [0040] and [Fig. 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Correll that the loading and unloading of the at least one object is done using a robotic arm. This would be done to provide a robotic gripper that has improved perception, gripping, computational, manipulation, and autonomous capabilities (see Correll para 0011).
With respect to claim 2, Lee disclose said maneuvering the cart to a second location step comprising: maneuvering the cart to an elevator on the floor of the building without contacting any of the obstacles (see at least [0041], [0218-0228], [0247], [0250], [0260-0262], [0265-0269], and [0293]); determining a location of an elevator button corresponding to a desired direction (see at least [0226]); maneuvering the robotic arm to activate the button (see at least [0226]); after a door of the elevator opens, maneuvering the cart into the elevator (see at least [0218], [0226], [0265-0268], [0275-0284], and [0294-0305]); maneuvering the robotic arm to activate a button inside the elevator (see at least [00296-0298] and [0302-0303]), the button inside the elevator corresponding to a different floor of the building (see at least [00296-0298] and [0302-0303]); and maneuvering the cart out of the elevator to the second location on the different floor without contacting potential obstacles on the different floor (see at least [0047-0048], [0120-0121], [0213], [0218], [0226-0027], [0246-0251], [0260-0268], [0274-0284], [0294-0305], and [0311]).
With respect to claim 6, Lee do not specifically disclose wherein: the robotic cart comprises at least a top shelf; and the robotic arm is mounted on the top shelf to optimize a reach of the robotic arm as well as locations for retrieving the at least one object.
Correll teaches wherein: the robotic cart comprises at least a top shelf (see at least [Fig. 2]); and the robotic arm is mounted on the top shelf to optimize a reach of the robotic arm as well as locations for retrieving the at least one object (see at least [Fig. 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Correll wherein: the robotic cart comprises at least a top shelf; and the robotic arm is mounted on the top shelf to optimize a reach of the robotic arm as well as locations for retrieving the at least one object. This would be done to provide a robotic gripper that has improved perception, gripping, computational, manipulation, and autonomous capabilities (see Correll para 0011).
With respect to claim 7, Lee discloses said obtaining step comprising receiving data regarding locations of potential obstacles from a plurality of sensors positioned on the robotic cart (see at least [0047-0048], [0081-0082], [0213], and [0260-0269]), wherein the sensors include at least one of time-of-flight sensors, light detecting and ranging sensors, and environmental sensors (see at least [0047-0048], [0081-0082], [0213], and [0260-0269]).
With respect to claim 8, Lee discloses said maneuvering the cart to a first location step comprising determining a navigational path to the first location (see at least [0047-0048], [0212-0214], [0252], [0271], and [0284-0294]); and changing the navigational path in response to detecting an obstacle in the determined navigational path (see at least [0047-0048], [0212-0214], [0252], [0271], and [0284-0294]), the changed navigational path designed to avoid the detected obstacle and provide instructions to the first location (see at least [0047-0048], [0212-0214], [0252], [0271], and [0284-0294]).
With respect to claim 9, Lee discloses wherein the second location is on the floor or a different floor of the building (see at least [0047-0048], [0120-0121], [0213], [0218], [0226-0027], [0246-0251], [0260-0268], [0274-0284], [0294-0305], and [0311]).
With respect to claim 10, Lee discloses wherein the at least one object includes different type of objects (see at least [0020-0024], [0031-0032], [0096], [0147-0149], [0170-0173], [0180-0182], and [0204]), the different types of objects being at the first location and other locations in the building (see at least [0020-0024], [0031-0032], [0096], [0147-0149], [0170-0173], [0180-0182], and [0204]).
However, Lee do not specifically disclose wherein said loading step comprising loading, using the robotic arm, the different type of objects onto the cart.
Correll teaches wherein said loading step comprising loading, using the robotic arm, the different type of objects onto the cart (see at least [0040], [Fig. 2], and [Figs. 9a-10c]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Correll wherein said loading step comprising loading, using the robotic arm, the different type of objects onto the cart. This would be done to provide a robotic gripper that has improved perception, gripping, computational, manipulation, and autonomous capabilities (see Correll para 0011).
With respect to claim 12, Lee discloses determining a navigational path for the robotic cart (see at least [0047-0048], [0212-0214], [0252], [0271], and [0284-0294]); and changing the navigational path when an event occurs that prevents the robotic cart from traversing the path (see at least [0047-0048], [0212-0214], [0252], [0271], and [0284-0294]).
With respect to claims 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 24, they are directed to a robotic cart claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12. As such, claims 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 24 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 and are incorporated herein.
Claims 3, 5, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20250315063) in view of Correll et al (US 20190381670 A1) in view of Caron l’ecuyer et al (US 20200086493 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Lee do not specifically disclose wherein the robotic arm includes a camera, said method further comprising: capturing, by the camera, image data of at least one item proximate the first location.
Correll teaches wherein the robotic arm includes a camera (see at least [0038]), said method further comprising: capturing, by the camera, image data of at least one item proximate the first location (see at least [0015], “…process the output images to determine the location and orientation of the one or more objects within the workspace…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Correll wherein the robotic arm includes a camera, said method further comprising: capturing, by the camera, image data of at least one item proximate the first location. This would be done to provide a robotic gripper that has improved perception, gripping, computational, manipulation, and autonomous capabilities (see Correll para 0011).
Moreover, Lee as modified by Correll do not specifically teach analyzing the captured image data to determine whether the at least one item matches the at least one object.
Caron teaches analyzing the captured image data to determine whether the at least one item matches the at least one object (see at least [0015-0016] and [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee as modified by Correll, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Caron of analyzing the captured image data to determine whether the at least one item matches the at least one object. This would be done to improve vision guided robotic arm and method for operating vision guided robotic arms so that they are more useful for variety of operations (see Caron para 0003-0006).
With respect to claim 5, Lee do not specifically disclose said maneuvering the robotic arm to locate the gripper comprising: determining, by the camera, location data of the at least one object; using the location data of the at least one object to manipulate the gripper to the location; and instructing the gripper to grasp the at least one object.
Correll teaches said maneuvering the robotic arm to locate the gripper comprising: determining, by the camera, location data of the at least one object (see at least [0015], “…process the output images to determine the location and orientation of the one or more objects within the workspace...”); using the location data of the at least one object to manipulate the gripper to the location (see at least [0015],; and instructing the gripper to grasp the at least one object (see at least [0015], “…process the output images to determine the location and orientation of the one or more objects within the workspace, and in accordance therewith provide as outputs therefrom control signals or instructions configured to be employed by the motors or actuators to control movement and operation of the plurality of fingers so as to permit the fingers to manipulate the one or more objects located within the workspace or target volume, wherein the gripper is configured to rotate or translate in conjunction with a movable robot wrist and robot arm operably connected thereto, and the gripper is configured such that during object grasping, releasing, and moving operations the plurality of fingers operate within a predetermined operational range of distances and angles that define the boundaries of the workspace and target volume.”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Correll wherein said maneuvering the robotic arm to locate the gripper comprising: determining, by the camera, location data of the at least one object; using the location data of the at least one object to manipulate the gripper to the location; and instructing the gripper to grasp the at least one object. This would be done to provide a robotic gripper that has improved perception, gripping, computational, manipulation, and autonomous capabilities (see Correll para 0011).
With respect to claims 15 and 17, they are directed to a robotic cart claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 3 and 5. As such, claims 15 and 17 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 3 and 5 and are incorporated herein.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20250315063) in view of Correll et al (US 20190381670 A1) in view of Caron l’ecuyer et al (US 20200086493 A1) in view of Bradski et al (US 29160288324 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Lee do not specifically disclose wherein the robotic arm includes a gripper, maneuvering the robotic arm to locate the gripper proximate the at least one object; grasping, by the gripper, the at least one object.
Correll teaches wherein the robotic arm includes a gripper (see at least [0036] and [Fig. 2]), maneuvering the robotic arm to locate the gripper proximate the at least one object (see at least [0040], [Fig. 2], and [Figs. 9a-10c]); grasping, by the gripper, the at least one object (see at least [0040], [Fig. 2], and [Figs. 9a-10c]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Correll wherein the robotic arm includes a gripper; maneuvering the robotic arm to locate the gripper proximate the at least one object; grasping, by the gripper, the at least one object. This would be done to provide a robotic gripper that has improved perception, gripping, computational, manipulation, and autonomous capabilities (see Correll para 0011).
However, Lee as modified by Correll do not specifically teach wherein said loading step further comprising: determining that the at least one item matches the at least one object.
Caron teaches wherein said loading step further comprising: determining that the at least one item matches the at least one object (see at least [0015-0016] and [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee as modified by Correll, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Caron wherein said loading step further comprising: determining that the at least one item matches the at least one object. This would be done to improve vision guided robotic arm and method for operating vision guided robotic arms so that they are more useful for variety of operations (see Caron para 0003-0006).
Moreover, Lee as modified by Correll and Caron do not specifically teach maneuvering the robotic arm to locate the at least one object on the cart; and releasing, by the gripper, the at least one object to place the at least one object on the cart.
Bradski teaches maneuvering the robotic arm to locate the at least one object on the cart (see at least [0047], [0026], and [0059]); and releasing, by the gripper, the at least one object to place the at least one object on the cart (see at least [0047], [0026], and [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee as modified by Correll and Caron, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Bradski maneuvering the robotic arm to locate the at least one object on the cart; and releasing, by the gripper, the at least one object to place the at least one object on the cart. This would be done to improve directing a robotic arm to pick up objects based on predetermined knowledge of where objects are in the environment. (see Bradski para 0005).
Claims 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20250315063) in view of Correll et al (US 20190381670 A1) in view of Lau et al (US 20170364074 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Lee as modified by Correll do not specifically teach determining an error occurred during at least one of said loading and unloading steps; and transmitting, by the controller, a message to an electronic device indicating an error has occurred, the electronic device being associated with a person who can address the error.
Lau teaches determining an error occurred during at least one of said loading and unloading steps (see at least [0054] and [0065]); and transmitting, by the controller, a message to an electronic device indicating an error has occurred (see at least [0054] and [0065]), the electronic device being associated with a person who can address the error (see at least [0054] and [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Lau of determining an error occurred during at least one of said loading and unloading steps; and transmitting, by the controller, a message to an electronic device indicating an error has occurred, the electronic device being associated with a person who can address the error. This would be done to improve and reduce delivery interruptions or failures (see Lau para 0005).
With respect to claim 23, it is directed to a robotic cart claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 11. As such, claim 23 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claim 11 and is incorporated herein.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
