www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`18/002,052
`
`12/16/2022
`
`Ryo TERASAWA
`
`19971US01
`
`3290
`
`Xsensts
`
`/Sony
`
`names
`
`Xsensus / Sony
`100 Daingerfield Road, Suite 402
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`HOLWERDA,STEPHEN
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3656
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/20/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`Xdocket @ XSensus.com
`
`Xsensuspat@ XSensus.com
`anaquadocketing @ Xsensus.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-14 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CL] Claim(s)__is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)( The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 16 December 2022 is/are: a)(¥) accepted or b)L) objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)(¥) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)Y) All
`1.1) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. |
`3.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20240827
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`18/002,052
`TERASAWA,Ryo
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`STEPHEN HOLWERDA
`3664
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 16 December 2022.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/002,052
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 2
`
`This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-14 as originally filed are
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`pending and have been considered as follows.
`
`1.
`
`The presentapplication,filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA orAIA Status
`
`inventorto file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Specification
`
`2.
`
`The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessarytodetermine the
`
`presence ofall possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requestedin correcting any errors of
`
`which applicant may become awarein the specification.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`(f} Element in Claim fora Combination. — An elementina claim for a combination may be expressed as
`a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts
`in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material,
`or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AlA35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`An elementina claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a
`specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim
`shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
`specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`4.
`
`The claimsin this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain
`
`meaning of the claim languagein light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`skillin the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of aclaim element (alsocommonly referred to as
`
`a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,is invoked.
`
`As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection |, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong
`
`test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`(A)
`
`the claim limitation uses the term “means”or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means”thatis a
`generic placeholder (alsocalled a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural
`meaning) for performing the claimed function;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/002,052
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 3
`
`(B)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language,typically, but
`not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such
`as “configured to” or “so that”; and
`
`(C)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or
`acts for performing the claimed function.
`Use of the word “means”(or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts toentirely perform the recited function.
`
`Absence of the word “means”(or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the
`
`claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
`
`AIA35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without
`
`reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means”(or “step”) are being interpreted
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicatedin an
`
`Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means”(or
`
`“step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
`
`except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`5.
`
`This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but
`
`are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
`
`because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without
`
`reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded
`
`by astructural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “encompassing box generation unit that generates”
`
`in Claim 1; “gripping position calculation unit that calculates” inClaim1; “control information generation
`
`unit that generates” in Claim 1; “display unit that displays” in Claim 4; “point cloud extraction unit that
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/002,052
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 4
`
`executes”in Claim 6; “encompassing box generation step of generating, byan encompassing box
`
`generation unit” in Claim 13; “gripping position calculation step of calculating, by a gripping position
`
`calculation unit” in Claim 13; “control information generation step of generating, bya control
`
`information generation unit” in Claim 13; “encompassing box generation unit to execute an
`
`encompassing box generation step of generating”in Claim 14; “gripping position calculation unit to
`
`execute a gripping position calculation step of calculating” in Claim 14; “control information generation
`
`unit to execute a control information generation step of generating” in Claim 14.
`
`Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C.
`
`112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted tocover the corresponding structure described in the
`
`specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
`
`If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
`
`AIA35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient
`
`structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations
`
`recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under
`
`35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`6.
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`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 requirementsofthis title.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, as drafted, is not
`
`directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention and includes embodiments directed to
`
`products that do not havea physical or tangible form.
`
`As per Claim 1, the claim is directed to “A robot control apparatus” that includes: “an
`
`encompassing box generation unit that generates”as per line 2-8; “a gripping position calculation unit
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/002,052
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page5S
`
`that calculates” as per line 9-20; and “a control information generation unit that generates”as per line
`
`21-24. The “encompassing box generation unit” as per line 2-8 generatesfirst and second boxes
`
`encompassing an object as per line 2-8 based on information “included in an image captured bya first
`
`camera mounted on a robot” and “animage captured by a second camera mounted on the robot”, but
`
`the first camera, second camera, and robot are not necessarily components of the claimed “apparatus”.
`
`The “gripping position calculation unit” as per line 9-20 calculates “relative position ... of the object to be
`
`gripped” based on information from thefirst and second cameras, but the first camera, second camera,
`
`and object are not necessarily components of the claimed “apparatus”. The “control information
`
`generation unit” as per line 21-24 generates information “for causing a hand of the robot to grip”, but
`
`no robot necessarily grips any object in the claim language.
`
`9240:
`
`In accordance with the Specification as filed:
`Note that the series of processing described in the specification can be executed by hardware, software, ora
`complex configuration of the both.
`In a case where the processing is executed using software,itis possible to
`execute the processing by installing a program recording a processing sequence on a memory ina computer
`built into dedicated hardwareor by installing a program in a general-purpose computer that can execute
`various processes. For example, the program canbe recorded in a recording medium in advance.
`
`Consistent with the Specification as filed, Claim 1 as drafted includes embodiments directed to
`
`functionality of software per se that is intended be installed in a general-purpose computer. Therefore,
`
`the “apparatus” of Claim 1 as draftedis not eligible for patent protection because it includes
`
`embodiments not directed to any of the statutory categories.
`
`As per Claim 2, the claim further describes the first and second cameras which,as discussed
`
`above, are not necessarily components of the claimed “apparatus”. Therefore, Claim 2 as drafted is not
`
`eligible for patent protection because it includes embodiments not directed to any of the statutory
`
`categories.
`
`As per Claim 3, the claim further describes the first cameras which, as discussed above,is not
`
`necessarily a component of the claimed “apparatus”. Therefore, Claim 3 as drafted is not eligible for
`
`patent protection because it includes embodiments not directed to any of the statutory categories.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/002,052
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 6
`
`As per Claim 4, the claim further describes the “target gripping position” and indicates that such
`
`position is “specified by a user viewing an image of a display unit” as per line 3-5. However, the “display
`
`unit” is not necessarilya componentof the claimed apparatus. Therefore, Claim 4 as drafted is not
`
`eligible for patent protection because it includes embodiments not directed to any of the statutory
`
`categories.
`
`As per Claim 5, the claim further describes “the target gripping position” and indicates that such
`
`position is “determined ... by the user who has viewed the image of the display unit” as per line 3-7.
`
`However, the “display unit” is not necessarilya component of the claimed apparatus. Therefore, Claim
`
`5 as draftedis not eligible for patent protection because it includes embodiments not directed to any of
`
`the statutory categories.
`
`As per Claim 6, that claim describes “a point cloud extraction unit that executes a process”
`
`related to the object to be gripped and imagesfrom thefirst and second camera. However, as discussed
`
`above, the object and cameras are not necessarily components of the claimed apparatus. Accordingly,
`
`Claim6as drafted includes embodiments describing functionality of software per se. Therefore, Claim
`
`6 as drafted is not eligible for patent protection because it includes embodiments not directed to any of
`
`the statutory categories.
`
`As per Claim 7, the claim further describes the “encompassing box generation unit” which, as
`
`discussed above, includes embodiments describing functionality of software perse. Therefore, Claim 7
`
`as draftedis not eligible for patent protection because it includes embodiments not directed to any of
`
`the statutory categories.
`
`As per Claim 8, the claim further describes the “encompassing box generation unit” which, as
`
`discussed above, includes embodiments describing functionality of software perse. Therefore, Claim 8
`
`as draftedis not eligible for patent protection because it includes embodiments not directed to any of
`
`the statutory categories.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/002,052
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 7
`
`As per Claim 9, the claim further describes the “encompassing box generation unit” which, as
`
`discussed above,includes embodiments describing functionality of software perse. Therefore, Claim 9
`
`as draftedis not eligible for patent protection because it includes embodiments not directed to any of
`
`the statutory categories.
`
`As per Claim 10, the claim further describes the “encompassing box generation unit” which, as
`
`discussed above, includes embodiments describing functionality of software perse. Therefore, Claim
`
`10 as draftedis not eligible for patent protection because it includes embodiments not directed to any
`
`of the statutory categories.
`
`As per Claim 11, the claim further describes the “encompassing box generation unit” which, as
`
`discussed above, includes embodiments describing functionality of software perse. Therefore, Claim
`
`11 as drafted is not eligible for patent protection because it includes embodiments not directed to any
`
`of the statutory categories.
`
`As per Claim 12, the claim further describes the “encompassing box generation unit” which, as
`
`discussed above, includes embodiments describing functionality of software perse. Therefore, Claim
`
`12 as drafted is not eligible for patent protection because it includes embodiments not directed to any
`
`of the statutory categories.
`
`As per Claim 13, the claim describes “a robot control method executed in a robot control
`
`apparatus”, the methodincluding: “an encompassing box generation steps of generating” as per line 3 -
`
`10; “a gripping position calculation step of calculating” as per line 11-22; and “a control information
`
`generation step of generating”as per line 23-27. The “encompassing box generation steps”as per line
`
`3-10 involves generating first and second boxes encompassing an object as per line 3-10 based on
`
`information “included in an image captured by a first camera mounted ona robot” and “an image
`
`captured by a second camera mounted on the robot”, but the first camera, second camera, and robot
`
`are not necessarily componentsof the claimed “apparatus”. The “gripping position calculation unit” as
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/002,052
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 8
`
`per line 11-22 involves calculating “relative position ... of the object to be gripped” based on information
`
`from the first and second cameras, but the first camera, second camera, and object are not necessarily
`
`components of the claimed “apparatus”. The “controlinformation generation unit” as per line 23-27
`
`involves generating information “for causing a hand of the robot to grip”, but no robot necessarily grips
`
`any object in the claim language.
`
`9240:
`
`In accordance with the Specification as filed:
`Note that the series of processing described in the specification can be executed by hardware, software,ora
`complex configuration of the both.
`In a case where the processing is executed using software,itis possible to
`execute the processing by installing a program recording a processing sequence on amemory ina computer
`built into dedicated hardwareor by installing a program in a general-purpose computer that can execute
`various processes. For example, the program canbe recorded in arecording medium in advance.
`
`Consistent with the Specification as filed, Claim 13 as drafted includes embodiments directed to
`
`functionality of software per se that is intended be installed in a general-purpose computer. Therefore,
`
`the “method” executed in an “apparatus” of Claim 13 as drafted is not eligible for patent protection
`
`because it includes embodiments not directed to any of the statutory categories.
`
`As per Claim 14, the claim describes a “program configured to execute robot control processing
`
`ina robot control apparatus”involving: “causing an encompassing box generation unit to execute” as
`
`per line 4-11; “causing a gripping position calculation unit to execute”as per line 12-24; and “causing a
`
`control information generation unit to execute”as per line 25-29. The “encompassing box generation
`
`unit” as per line 4-11 generatesfirst and second boxes encompassing an object as per line 4-11 based on
`
`information “included in an image captured by a first camera mounted ona robot” and “an image
`
`captured by a second camera mounted on the robot”, but the first camera, second camera, and robot
`
`are not necessarily componentsof the claimed “apparatus”. The “gripping position calculation unit” as
`
`per line 12-24 calculates “relative position... of the object to be gripped” bas ed on information from the
`
`first and second cameras, but the first camera, second camera, and object are not necessarily
`
`components of the claimed “apparatus”. The “controlinformation generation unit” as per line 25-29
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/002,052
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 9
`
`generatesinformation “for causing a hand of the robot to grip”, but no robot necessarily grips any
`
`object in the claim language.
`
`9240:
`
`In accordance with the Specification as filed:
`Note that the series of processing described in the specification can be executed by hardware, software,or a
`complex configuration of the both.
`In a case where the processing is executed using software,itis possible to
`execute the processing by installing a program recording a processing sequence on a memory ina computer
`built into dedicated hardwareor by installing a program ina general-purpose computer that can execute
`various processes. For example, the program canbe recorded in a recording medium in advance.
`
`Consistent with the Specification as filed, Claim 14 as drafted includes embodiments directed to
`
`functionality of software per se that is intended be installed in a general-purpose computer. Therefore,
`
`the “program”of Claim 14 as drafted is not eligible for patent protection because it includes
`
`embodiments not directed to any of the statutory categories.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`8.
`
`Inthe 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
`
`basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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.
`
`9.
`
`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 forthin 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.
`
`10.
`
`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 atissue.
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/002,052
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 10
`
`11.
`
`Claims 1-5 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homberg (US
`
`Pub. No. 2019/0337152) in view of Kuo (US Patent No. 9,298,974).
`
`As per Claim 1, Homberg discloses a robot control apparatus (118) (Fig. 1; 135-44) comprising:
`
`an encompassing box generation unit (as per “the sensor data may be processed to determine a
`
`three-dimensional bounding box surrounding bowl 622”in 989) that generatesa first camera-based
`
`encompassing box(as per “a three-dimensional bounding box” in 489) that encompassesan object
`
`(622) to be gripped included in an image captured by a first camera (as per “the vision sensorsin robotic
`
`head 604” in 789) mounted on a robot (602), and information included in an image captured by a
`
`second camera (330) mounted on the robot (602) (Figs. 3-4, 6A-D; 64-68, 73, 77-79, 84-87, 89, 92-93,
`
`95);
`
`a gripping position calculation unit (as per “The bounding box may be used to determine how to
`
`position a sensor on gripper 606 relative to bow! 622” in 489) that calculates a relative position (as per
`
`“position a sensor on gripper 606 relative to bowl 622” in 489) of a target gripping position (as per
`
`“control the gripper 606 to pick up the bowl 622” in 789) of the object (622) to be gripped (via gripper
`
`606) with respect to the first camera-based encompassing box (as per “a three-dimensional bounding
`
`box” in 489) in the image captured by thefirst camera (as per “the vision sensors in robotic head 604),
`
`calculates the target gripping position (as per “control the gripper 606 to pick up the bowl 622” in 989)
`
`with respect tothe image captured by the second camera (330) on a basis of the calculated relative
`
`position (as per “position a sensor on gripper 606relative to bowl 622”in 989, as per “The bounding box
`
`may then be used by robot 602 in order to determine how to position gripper 606 above bow! 622 to
`
`collect additional sensor data”in 93, as per “cause a downward-facing sensor on gripper 606 to elect
`
`sensor data representative of the bowl 622”in 995), and sets the calculated target gripping position as a
`
`corrected target gripping position (as per “the sensor data may allow robot 602 to determine operations
`
`to perform on bowl 622 ... before making any physical contact with bowl 622” in 495) of the object (622)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/002,052
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 11
`
`to be gripped included in the image captured by the second camera (330) (Figs 6A-D; 984-87, 89, 92-93,
`
`95); and
`
`a control information generation unit (as per “determine operations to perform on bowl 622”in
`
`995) that generates control information (as per “control the gripper 606 to pick up the bowl 622”in
`
`189) for causing a hand (606) of the robot (602) to grip the corrected targetgripping position (as per
`
`“the sensor data may allow robot 602 to determine operations to perform on bowl 622 ... before making
`
`any physical contact with bowl 622” in 995) in the image captured by the second camera (330) (Figs 6A-
`
`D; 984-87, 89, 92-93, 95).
`
`Homberg does not expressly disclose:
`
`wherein the information included in the image captured by the second camerais in the form of
`
`aa second camera-based encompassing box that encompasses the object; and
`
`wherein the target gripping position is calculated with respect tothe second camera-based
`
`encompassing box.
`
`Kuo discloses a computing device (104) that includes a first camera (106a) and a second camera
`
`(106b) in which the cameras (106a, 106b) capture images simultaneously (Fig. 1A; 3:65-31). Images
`
`(300a, 300b) of an object (102) are captured by the cameras (106a, 106b) and processed totrack and
`
`resolve discrepancies between the detected outputs as per the images (300a, 300b)(Fig. 3; 6:1-29).
`
`In
`
`one embodiment, the first image (300a/400a) is identified by a first bounding box (402a), the second
`
`image (300b/400b)is identified by a second bounding box (402b), and features of the object (102) in the
`
`first bounding box (402a) are extracted and usedto search for and matchcorresponding features in the
`
`second bounding box (402b) (Fig. 4; 6:30-50).
`
`In a tracking mode (206), a tracking algorithm evaluates
`
`the object (102) as per each bounding box (402a, 402b) to determinetherelative locations of points of
`
`the object (102) in order to determine a three-dimensional position (x, y, z) of specified points within the
`
`object (102) (Figs. 2-4; 4:49-6:50). Like Homberg, Kuo is concerned with image processing systems.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/002,052
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 12
`
`Therefore, from these teachings of Homberg and Kuo, one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kuo to the system of Homberg
`
`since doing so would enhance the system by providing three-dimensional position of specified points
`
`within target objects. Applying the teachings of Kuo to the system of Homberg would results in a system
`
`that operates:
`
`“wherein the information included in the image captured by the second camerais in the form of
`
`aa second camera-based encompassing box that encompassesthe object” in that image processing of
`
`Homberg would be informed by Kuo to produce bounding boxes for each camera image; and
`
`“wherein the target gripping position is calculated with respect to the second camera -based
`
`encompassing box” in that image processing of Homberg would be informed by Kuo determine relative
`
`position of specified points by evaluating bounding boxes for each camera image.
`
`As per Claim 2, the combination of Homberg and Kuo teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim
`
`1. Homberg further discloses wherein: the first camera (as per “the vision sensors in robotic head 604)
`
`is an overhead camerathat capturesa bird's-eye view image(Figs. 6A-D; 984-87, 89, 92-93, 95), andthe
`
`second camera (330) is ahand camera that captures an image(as per Fig. 6D) from the hand (606)
`
`performing a process of gripping the object (622) to be gripped or a position close to the hand (606)
`
`(Figs. GA-D; 84-87, 89, 92-93, 95).
`
`As per Claim 3, the combination of Homberg and Kuo teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim
`
`2. Hombergfurther discloses wherein: the first camera(as per “the vision sensors in robotic head 604”
`
`in 989) is the overhead camera that is mounted on a head of the robot (602) and captures the bird's-eye
`
`view image from the head (Figs. 6A-D; 984-87, 89, 92-93, 95).
`
`As per Claim 4, the combination of Homberg and Kuo teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim
`
`1. Homberg further discloses wherein: the target gripping position (as per “control the gripper 606 to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/002,052
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 13
`
`pick up the bowl 622” in 9189) is agripping position specified by a user (as per “The user may be
`
`provided with means... to indicate whether or not particular images correspond to a state in which the
`
`bowl should be ... manipulated” in 932) viewing an imageof a display unit (as per “user interface ona
`
`mobile device” on 4/32) that displays the image captured by thefirst camera (as per “the vision sensors
`
`in robotic head 604”in 4189) (9132, 89).
`
`As per Claim 5, the combination of Homberg and Kuo teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim
`
`4. Hombergfurther discloses wherein: the target gripping position (as per “control the gripper 606 to
`
`pick up the bowl 622” in 989) is agripping position determined, as a position at which the object (622)
`
`to be gripped is stably grippable, by the user (as per “The user may be provided with means... to
`
`indicate whether or not particular images correspond toastate in which the bowl should be...
`
`manipulated” in 932) who has viewed the imageof the display unit (as per “user interface on a mobile
`
`device” on 432) that displays the image capturedby thefirst camera (as per “the vision sensorsin
`
`robotic head 604”in 989) (932, 89).
`
`As per Claim 9, the combination of Homberg and Kuo teachesor suggestsall limitations of Claim
`
`1. Homberg further discloses wherein: the encompassing box generation unit (as per “the sensor data
`
`may be processed to determine a three-dimensional bounding box surrounding bowl 622” in 789)
`
`generatesthefirst camera-based encompassing box (as per “a three-dimensional bounding box” in 189)
`
`in the image captured by the first camera (as per “the vision sensorsin robotic head 604” in 489) (Figs.
`
`3-4, 6A-D; 164-68, 73, 77-79, 84-87, 89, 92-93, 95).
`
`Homberg does not expressly disclose: the second camera -based encompassing box in the image
`
`captured by the second camera as encompassing boxes having asame shape as thefirst box.
`
`See re