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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-22 as filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error resulting in inconsistencies in the claim language. Claim 2 discloses “an airport baggage hold door” while dependent claims 3 and 4 disclose “the aircraft baggage hold door”. In order to maintain consistency with claims 3, 4, and the specification, examiner suggests changing to, and will further evaluate the claim if claim 2 is written as “an aircraft baggage hold door”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. Claim 14 discloses “the should or base of the robotic arm”. Examiner suggests changing to, and will further evaluate the claim if claim 14 is written as “the shoulder base of the robotic arm”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3 and 4 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 systems claimed in claims 3 and 4 are directed towards the active action of conveyors carrying baggage. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention as it is unclear how conveyors in an inactive or idle state would read on these claims. Since the claims are system claims, examiner suggests changing to, and will examine the claims in light of prior art as if the phrase “the first baggage conveyor carries baggage” is changed to “the first baggage conveyor is configured to carry baggage”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10, 13, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truelsen (Danish Patent Application publication DK202370501A1 hereinafter “Truelsen”) in view of Krishnamurthy et al (U.S. Patent 12306611 B1 hereinafter “Krishnamurthy”).
Regarding Claim 1, Truelsen discloses
A robotic baggage handling system, comprising:
a communication interface configured to receive data from one or more sensors; and
a processor coupled to the communication interface and configured to:
Truelsen pertains to an automated baggage handling robot that moves items from a conveyor and places them in a container such as a unit load device to load an airplane. Truelsen further details “the invention relates to an automated baggage handling robot comprising: a robot (ROB) automatically operating a baggage vacuum lift tool (BVL), a controller (CON) controlling said robot (ROB), a conveyor (CONV), the robot (ROB) operating within a working zone (WZ), wherein the robot (ROB) is communicatively coupled with at least one sensor (SENS)” (0004). Truelsen further discloses
use sensor data received via the communication interface from the one or more sensors to generate a three-dimensional view of a baggage handling workspace; and
by detailing “In an embodiment of the invention the picking automatic placing of baggage at the placing zone is controlled by the controller of the robot on the basis of at least one sensor at least detecting the location or physical boundaries of baggage already present at the placing zone” (0048). It is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that detecting the location or physical boundaries of baggage is analogous to a three-dimensional view. Truelsen refers to robotic planning in terms of placing patterns and further discloses
use the generated three-dimensional view of the baggage handling workspace to generate and implement a plan to use one or more robotic arms to pick and place baggage items as needed to do one or both of
by detailing “The at least one sensor may be used to establishing sensing data which may be used as a basis for automatically placing the baggage in the placing zone in suitable placing patterns” (0117). Truelsen further discloses
(1) load baggage items from a first baggage conveyor into or onto a trolley, Unit Load Device (ULD), or other container; and
by detailing “The baggage could typically come from either check-in or another place in the process prior to handling over the baggage to the cart or unit load device which may transfer the baggage to e.g., an airplane” (0009). Truelsen further teaches unloading an airplane in addition to loading an airplane by detailing “Such an application may be advantageous e.g. when the invention is applied for unloading an airplane” (0153) but is silent on the details if the unloading process includes moving baggage from a container to a conveyor. However, Krishnamurthy teaches
(2) remove baggage items from a trolley, Unit Load Device (ULD), or other container and place each on a second baggage conveyor.
Krishnamurthy pertains to a technique to validate robotic manipulation events, such as airport luggage systems, and discloses the picking of an item from a container and placing it on a conveyor by detailing “The respective robot station may pick the container, grasp and move the item from the container, package the item, and place the package on the conveyor belt 130. Picking, packaging, and placing may represent other examples of manipulations” (column 3, line 42). Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to use the details of picking baggage from a container and placing it on a conveyer provided by Krishnamurthy when using the system of Truelsen to unload an airplane.
Regarding Claim 2, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Truelsen further discloses wherein the first baggage conveyor comprises an aircraft loading and unloading conveyor configured to be positioned with a first end near an airport baggage hold door and a second end near the tarmac by detailing “In an embodiment, the conveyor associated with/included as a part of the baggage handling robot is mobile and the baggage handling robots moves together with the conveyor. Such an application may be advantageous e.g. when the invention is applied for unloading an airplane” (0153). It is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that an advantageous orientation for a mobile conveyor to load or unload an airplane is with one end near an airplane baggage hold door and a second near the tarmac.
Regarding Claim 3, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and Truelsen further discloses wherein the first baggage conveyor carries baggage items from the tarmac to the aircraft baggage hold door during a loading operation in preparation for aircraft departure by detailing “In an embodiment, the conveyor associated with/included as a part of the baggage handling robot is mobile and the baggage handling robots moves together with the conveyor. Such an application may be advantageous e.g. when the invention is applied for unloading an airplane” (0153). It is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that an advantageous direction for a mobile conveyor to load an airplane is to move the baggage from the tarmac to the aircraft baggage hold.
Regarding Claim 4, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and Truelsen further discloses wherein the first baggage conveyor carries baggage items from the aircraft baggage hold door to the tarmac during an unloading operation in connection with aircraft arrival by detailing “In an embodiment, the conveyor associated with/included as a part of the baggage handling robot is mobile and the baggage handling robots moves together with the conveyor. Such an application may be advantageous e.g. when the invention is applied for unloading an airplane” (0153). It is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that an advantageous direction for a mobile conveyor to unload an airplane is to move the baggage from the aircraft baggage hold to the tarmac.
Regarding Claim 5, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Truelsen further discloses wherein the second baggage conveyor comprises an airport baggage handling system conveyor configured to carry bags to an outbound baggage handling area for further conveyance to, and loading onto, a departing aircraft. Truelsen refers to the baggage handling system in terms of a picking zone and a placing zone, further detailing “The picking zone (LZ) may typically comprise a part of a conveyor, where the conveyor conveys baggage to the picking zone (LZ). The baggage could typically come from either check-in or another place in the process prior to handling over the baggage to the cart or unit load device which may transfer the baggage to e.g., an airplane.” (0009). Truelsen further discloses that this system can include a second conveyer by detailing “The picking zone LZ may in another embodiment be the entire second conveyor (not shown)” (0219).
Regarding Claim 6, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Truelsen further discloses wherein the second baggage conveyor comprises an airport baggage handling system conveyor configured to carry bags from an arriving flight to a baggage claim area or equipment. Truelsen discloses the generally accepted functions of a conveyor by stating “The conveyor could also be a straight regular conveyor that conveys baggage from a point a to b in a straight line or a line with some turns” (0009). Truelsen further discloses the point a to be from an arriving flight and the point b to be equipment when detailing “Such an application may be advantageous e.g. when the invention is applied for unloading an airplane. Also here, it is advantageous that the baggage handling robot may vacuum lift most of the baggage and place the baggage items in a suitable placing pattern in baggage carts applied for transporting baggage from the airplane to a baggage hub or a baggage end location at the airport” (0153).
Regarding Claim 7, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Krishnamurthy further discloses further comprising a transfer conveyor on which the one or more robotic arms place baggage items removed from the trolley, Unit Load Device (ULD), or other container by detailing “The respective robot station may pick the container, grasp and move the item from the container, package the item, and place the package on the conveyor belt 130. Picking, packaging, and placing may represent other examples of manipulations. Once on the conveyor belt 130 again, the package may be moved to a delivery vehicle 160” (column 3, line 42). Krishnamurthy fails to teach that the downstream processing of the transfer conveyor is a second conveyor. However, Truelsen teaches and wherein the transfer conveyor is positioned and configured to further convey the baggage items onto the second baggage conveyor. Truelsen discloses several conveyor and robot configurations, and specifies a second conveyor in figure 6a, detailing “The conveyor CONV could be transferring a piece of baggage (not shown) to the second conveyor with the picking zone LZ” (0219). Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to use the second conveyor of Truelsen as the downstream processing of the baggage handling system of Krishnamurthy to yield the predictable combination of known conveyors.
Regarding Claim 8, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy disclose all the limitations of claim 7, and Truelsen further discloses in figures 1 and 4a wherein the robotic baggage handling system comprises two robotic arms (ROB1, ROB2) mounted on a base (RBA) or chassis and the transfer conveyor (CONV) is positioned at a side of the base or chassis further detailing “Fig. 4a illustrates an embodiment of the invention where the baggage handling robot comprises two robots ROB1, ROB2 and each robot ROB1, ROB2 is used for sorting baggage along a conveyor CONV” (0208).
Regarding Claim 9, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy disclose all the limitations of claim 7, and Truelsen further discloses in figures 1 and 9a wherein the robotic baggage handling system comprises two robotic arms (ROB1, ROB2) mounted on a base (RBA) or chassis, the transfer conveyor (CONV) comprises a first transfer conveyor positioned on a first side of the base or chassis, and the robotic baggage handling system further comprises a second transfer conveyor positioned on a second side of the base or chassis opposite the first side further detailing “In an additional embodiment of the invention there may be either one, two or more than three conveyor branch(es) each with a stand-alone baggage handling robot (not shown). Each conveyor branch may also comprise more than one stand-alone baggage handling robot, e.g., as illustrated in fig. 3e or 4a.” (0233).
Regarding Claim 10, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy disclose all the limitations of claim 7, and Truelsen further discloses in figures 1 and 9a wherein the robotic baggage handling system comprises two robotic arms (ROB1, ROB2) mounted on a base (RBA) or chassis and the transfer conveyor (CONV) is positioned between the robotic arms.
Regarding Claim 13, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Truelsen further discloses in figure 1 wherein the robotic baggage handling system comprises a robotic arm (RAM) that is coupled to a base (RBA) or chassis via a robotic arm shoulder positioning mechanism (FJ0, FJ1) that adds one or more additional degrees of freedom (RA0, RA1) to those of the robotic arm.
Regarding Claim 21, Truelsen discloses in the Field of the Invention section
A method of controlling a robotic baggage handling system , comprising:
by stating “The present invention relates to a stand-alone automated baggage handling robot, a method of operating the baggage handling robot and a method of retrofitting the baggage-handling robot” (0000). Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy discloses the remainder of the claim in a similar manner to the rejected claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 22, Truelsen discloses in figure 2
A computer program product to a robotic baggage handling system, computer program product being embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for:
by stating “The robot controller CON comprises a processer and memory and is configured to control the joint motors of the joints” (0183). Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy discloses the remainder of the claim in a similar manner to the rejected claim 1 above.
Claims 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy, further in view of Vestergaard et al (U.S. Patent Application publication 20200283168 A1 hereinafter “Vestergaard”).
Regarding Claim 11, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy disclose all the limitations of claim 7, but Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy fails to teach the use of a ball conveyor. However, Vestergaard teaches further comprising a ball conveyor or other omnidirectional conveyor configured to convey baggage items onto the transfer conveyor. Vestergaard pertains to an adjustable height conveyor system for the loading and unloading of baggage at an airport and details “The carrying means may be a roller conveyor, a belt conveyor, a ball transfer conveyor” (0034). Therefore, it would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to combine the known robotic baggage handling system of Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy with the known ball conveyor of Vestergaard to yield predictable results when handling baggage at an airport.
Regarding Claim 12, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy, further in view of Vestergaard disclose all the limitations of claim 11, and Vestergaard further discloses wherein the ball conveyor or other omnidirectional conveyor is adjustable in height and the processor is configured to control a height adjustment mechanism of the ball conveyor or other omnidirectional conveyor to position the ball conveyor or other omnidirectional conveyor at a height that optimizes unloading given a current height from which items are being picked from the trolley, Unit Load Device (ULD), or other container. Vestergaard discloses the adjustable height of the ball conveyor in figures 4a-b, and by detailing “The belt conveyor is pivotally mounted on an inner frame 32 at the distal end allowing the belt conveyor to be rotated between a lower position and an upper position such that the belt conveyor can be placed at an height that corresponds to a height where transport items on the transport unit is located” (0130).
Claims 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy, further in view of Verma et al (U.S. Patent Application publication 20240058960 A1 hereinafter “Verma”).
Regarding Claim 14, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy disclose all the limitations of claim 13, and Truelsen teaches a plurality of links in the robot arm by detailing “In an embodiment of the invention the robot arm comprises multiple joints and where the joints are capable of rotating 360 degrees” (0043). Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy are silent on the details if the plurality of robot arm links constitute a shoulder position mechanism. However, Verma teaches wherein the robotic arm shoulder positioning mechanism comprises a pair of extension links connected to each other by a robotic joint and affixed at a proximal end to a mounting location on the base or chassis and at a distal end to the should or base of the robotic arm. Verma pertains to a robotic having seven or more degrees of freedom and refers to a shoulder positioning mechanism as a positioning cam, further detailing “To reach a higher position, such as to grasp or place a box or other item on the top of a stack or on/from a high shelf, positioning cam 106 may be positioning in a vertical orientation that places the shoulder (joint “1”) of robotic arm 104 at a higher position (e.g., above the floor)” (0036, figure 1). Therefore, it would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to use the seven degree of freedom robotic arm with shoulder positioning mechanism disclosed by Verma to provide the specific details on the multiple joint robotic arm disclosed by Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy, to reach a higher position.
Regarding Claim 15, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy disclose all the limitations of claim 13, and Truelsen teaches a plurality of links in the robot arm but Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy are silent on the details if the plurality of robot arm links constitute a shoulder position mechanism. However, Verma teaches wherein the robotic arm shoulder positioning mechanism enables the shoulder of the robotic arm to positioned nearer to or in the trolley, Unit Load Device (ULD), or other container. Verma pertains to a robotic having seven or more degrees of freedom and refers to a shoulder positioning mechanism as a positioning cam, further detailing “The positioning cam 106 may be rotated back, for example, to facilitate using the robotic arm 104 to grasp an item from (or place an item in) a position near the mobile base 102, e.g., on the ground near the mobile base 102” (0036, figures 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to use the seven degree of freedom robotic arm with shoulder positioning mechanism disclosed by Verma to provide the specific details on the multiple joint robotic arm disclosed by Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy, to reach positions nearer containers.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy, further in view of Hallock et al (U.S. Patent Application publication 20200171650 A1 hereinafter “Hallock”).
Regarding Claim 16, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy teaches the use of two robotic arms, but fails to teach the robotic arms having dissimilar end effectors. However, Hallock teaches wherein the robotic system includes two robotic arms having dissimilar types of robotic end effectors. Hallock pertains to the coordination of two robotic manipulators to move items from a container to a conveyor and discloses the use of dissimilar end effectors by detailing “The robot manipulators have an end-of-arm-tooling (“EOAT”) with fingers or grippers that can be powered electrically, hydraulically, mechanically, pneumatically, etc. The end-or-arm-tooling may also be referring to herein as an end effector or simply a tool. In other embodiments, the robot manipulators can be vacuum grippers, or can include an EOAT that includes a vacuum suction mechanism” (0025). Hallock further specifies that each robot arm has a different end effector by stating “The primary and secondary robot manipulators are both EOATs in some embodiments. In other embodiments, the primary robot manipulator can be a first type (such as, for example, an EOAT), while the second robot manipulator can be a second type (such as, for example, a vacuum gripper)” (0026). Therefore it would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to use the dissimilar end effectors of Hallock when handling baggage with the system of Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy, as a variety of end effectors allows for a variety of grasping strategies when handling the variety of items at an airport baggage handling facility.
Regarding Claim 17, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy, further in view of Hallock disclose all the limitations of claim 16, and Hallock discloses wherein a first end effector comprises a gripper type end effector and a second end effector comprises a suction type end effector by stating “The primary and secondary robot manipulators are both EOATs in some embodiments. In other embodiments, the primary robot manipulator can be a first type (such as, for example, an EOAT), while the second robot manipulator can be a second type (such as, for example, a vacuum gripper)” (0026).
Regarding Claim 18, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy, further in view of Hallock disclose all the limitations of claim 17, and Hallock discloses wherein the processor is further configured to select which end effector will be used to grasp a given baggage item. Hallock pertains to the coordinated movement of two robotic arms to pick and place items, with the second arm designed to grasp the item when the first arm needs additional support. Hallock details the configuration of the processor by stating “The system can be used in conjunction with reinforcement learning techniques, so that over time, the system can intelligently predict when a particular type, size, or shape of object may require a supplemental securement. The system can proactively deploy or position the secondary robot manipulator immediately upon determining if a target object would likely require a supplemental securement, based on learned data. This could reduce the amount of time for the system to determine if the secondary robot manipulator should be deployed, as well as reduce the time to execute the supplemental securement function.” (0030). Hallock further details the selecting which of the first or second end effector will be used by stating “In yet other embodiments, the secondary robot manipulator can be controlled via signals from the primary robot manipulator. For example, sensors in the primary robot manipulator, such as strain gauges, pressure transducers, cameras, and the like can determine if the target object is too heavy to be grasped or positioned by the primary robot manipulator. In this scenario, the primary robot manipulator can signal the actuation of the secondary robot manipulator” (0032).
Regarding Claim 19, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy, further in view of Hallock disclose all the limitations of claim 18, and Hallock discloses wherein the selection is made based at least in part on one or more attributes of the baggage item by stating “For example, sensors in the primary robot manipulator, such as strain gauges, pressure transducers, cameras, and the like can determine if the target object is too heavy to be grasped or positioned by the primary robot manipulator” (0032).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy, further in view of Smith (U.S. Patent Application publication US 20240253246 A1 hereinafter “Smith”).
Regarding Claim 20, Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy teaches the use of robotic arms to handle baggage, but fails to teach an end effector with a downward curling lip. However, Smith teaches wherein the robotic system includes a robotic arm equipped with an end effector that includes a downward curling lip at a distal end and wherein the processor is configured to use the end effector that includes the downward curling lip at the distal end to engage a far edge or side of a baggage item and pull the baggage item towards the robotic arm. Smith pertains to a robotic end effector for acquiring and managing baggage and discloses a processor (fig 1) configured to use the downward curling lip at the distal end of the end effector (there article interface system 110, figures2) to engage the far edge of a baggage item (TA, figure 4D) and pull the baggage item towards the robotic arm (figures 4a-e). Therefore, it would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to use the end effector disclosed by Smith with the baggage handling system of Truelsen in view of Krishnamurthy in order to interface with a baggage article to facilitate movement of the baggage article toward the robot capture device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan Daniel Neckel whose telephone number is (571)272-9537. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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.
/NATHAN DANIEL NECKEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights