DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office action in response to the RCE filed 04/23/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 6, 10, 12, 14-16, and 18-24 are pending;
Claims 1-3, 6, 10, 14, 15, and 18-20 are currently amended; claims 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, and 17 have been cancelled; claim 12 was previously presented; claim 16 is original; claims 21-24 are new;
Claims 1-3, 6, 10, 12, 14-16, and 18-24 are rejected herein.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections set forth in the Office action mailed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, Applicant alleges that none of Wiesing, Herbermann, and Norris individually or collectively discloses all of the limitations of amended claims 1 and 20 (remarks, page 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since Wiesing, in view of Herbermann and Norris, does teach all limitations of amended claims 1 and 20. Applicant is hereby directed to the detailed discussions of the combination of Wiesing, Herbermann, and Norris below in the current Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature "wherein the first cantilevered bar segment and the second cantilevered bar segment are a single element" (claim 21, lines 1 and 2; claim 23, lines 1 and 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). As best understood, the first cantilever bar segment and the second cantilevered bar segment as illustrated in the drawings are not depicted to be "a single element" as claimed. Applicant is hereby directed to pages 3, 4, and 8 of the Office action mailed 02/04/2026 for annotations of the drawings. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, there is no "first longitudinal axis" recited in the claim. Thus, the limitation "a second longitudinal axis" in line 14 and the limitation "a third longitudinal axis" in line 17 appear to be weird.
Claim 18, there is no "first longitudinal axis" recited in the claim. Thus, the limitation "a fourth longitudinal axis" in lines 2 and 3 appears to be weird.
Claim 20, there is no "first longitudinal axis" recited in the claim. Thus, the limitation "a second longitudinal axis" in line 17 and the limitation "a third longitudinal axis" in line 20 appear to be weird.
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 14, 15, 20, 23, and 24 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.
Regarding claim 14, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the direction" (line 6) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the at least one workpiece" (lines 17 and 18) in the claim. Also, it is not clear as to whether the limitation "the at least one workpiece" in lines 17 and 18 and the limitation "a workpiece" in line 5 refer to the same workpiece or different workpieces. Note that the limitation "the at least one workpiece" is further recited in line 21. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15, 23, and 24 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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 1-3, 6, 10, 12, 14-16, 20, 22, and 24, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiesing et al. (EP 3718659 A1)1, hereinafter Wiesing, in view of Herbermann et al. (US 5,733,097), hereinafter Herbermann, and Norris et al. (US 10,422,442 B2), hereinafter Norris.
Regarding claim 1, Wiesing discloses a conveyor apparatus (100, fig 3) for a press installation (1, fig 1), the press installation comprising a first station (3, fig 1) and a second station (5, fig 1) located downstream the first station in a forward movement direction (see Figure 1), the conveyor apparatus being configured to convey at least one workpiece (12, fig 2) from the first station to the second station (see Figure 1), the conveyor apparatus comprising:
a support (113, fig 3; alternatively, 101, 111, 113, fig 3);
a first cantilevered bar segment (117L, fig 3) supported by the support and located on a first side of the support (see Figure 3) and a second cantilevered bar segment (117R, fig 3) supported by the support and located on a second side of the support (see Figure 3), each of the first and second cantilevered bar segments having a longitudinal axis (see Figure 3) and being movable at least in the forward movement direction between the first station and the second station (see Figures 1-7);
a first tool (119L, fig 3) attached to the first cantilevered bar segment (see Figure 3), the first tool having a second longitudinal axis (see Figure 3) and at least one gripper (1191, fig 9, see annotation, the grippers of the gripping device 119L) configured to hold the at least one workpiece (see Figure 9); and
a second tool (119R, fig 3) attached to the second cantilevered bar segment (see Figure 3), the second tool having a third longitudinal axis (see Figure 3) and at least one gripper (1192, fig 9, see annotation, the grippers of the gripping device 119R) configured to hold the at least one workpiece (see Figure 9).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1191 – At Least One Gripper)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
516
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (1192 – At Least One Gripper)]
Wiesing does not disclose the conveyor apparatus, (1) wherein the at least one gripper of the first tool is at least one suction cup configured to hold the at least one workpiece, the at least one gripper of the second tool is at least one suction cup configured to hold the at least one workpiece; (2) wherein the conveyor apparatus comprises: a first passive vibration compensation block attached to a free end of the first cantilevered bar segment furthest from the support; and a second passive vibration compensation block attached to a free end of the second cantilevered bar segment furthest from the support, the first and second passive vibration compensation blocks respectively being configured to passively reduce vibrations generated in the first and second cantilevered bar segments when the first and second cantilevered bar segments move from the first station to the second station.
With respect to the missing limitations (1) above, Herbermann teaches a conveyor apparatus (col 3, lines 12-15) comprising: a first tool (26, 36, 38, fig 1) having at least one suction cup (26, fig 1) configured to hold a workpiece (34, fig 1); and a second tool (28, 36, 38, fig 1) having at least one suction cup (28, fig 1) configured to hold the workpiece (see Figure 1).
Wiesing and Herbermann are analogous art because they are at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., conveyor apparatuses. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form each of the at least one gripper (Wiesing: 1191, fig 9, see annotation) of the first tool (Wiesing: 119L, fig 9) as a suction cup (Herbermann: 26, fig 1) and form each of the at least one gripper (Wiesing: 1192, fig 9, see annotation) of the second tool (Wiesing: 119R, fig 9) as a suction cup (Herbermann: 28, fig 1), as taught by Herbermann, with a reasonable expectation of success, since suction cups are commonly favored in the art for offering a gentle, non-damaging, and versatile grip, especially for delicate or irregularly shaped workpieces, providing a strong hold through atmospheric pressure, and being customizable for various materials and shapes, enhancing precision and efficiency in automated handling.
With respect to the missing limitations (2) above, Norris teaches an apparatus (100, fig 7) comprising: a crossbar (104, fig 7) having a first segment (108, fig 7) and a second segment (110, fig 7); a first passive vibration compensation block (300, fig 7) attached to the first segment (see Figure 7); and a second passive vibration compensation block (300, fig 7) attached to the second segment of the crossbar (see Figure 7), wherein the first and second passive vibration compensation blocks are identical in structure to one another (see Figure 7). While the structural components of the first and second passive vibration compensation blocks (300, fig 7) are not shown in Figure 7, Norris further teaches, in detail, the structural components of different exemplary passive vibration compensation blocks (see Figures 8 and 9), including: an exemplary passive vibration compensation block (502, 504, 506, 508, 510, 516, fig 9) attached to a crossbar segment (514, fig 9) and configured to passively reduce vibrations generated in the crossbar segment (see Figure 9).
Norris is analogous art because it is at least from a similar problem solving area, i.e., vibration absorbers. Since it is commonly known in the art that the crossbar and the tools in a conveyor apparatus can be undesirably subject to vibrations (e.g., see Herbermann: col 1, lines 19-25), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to attach a first passive vibration compensation block (Norris: 300, fig 1) to the first cantilevered bar segment (Wiesing: 117L, fig 3) and attach a second passive vibration compensation block (Norris: 300, fig 1) to the second cantilevered bar segment (Wiesing: 117R, fig 3), with the first and second passive vibration compensation blocks being identical in structure to one another (Norris: see Figure 7), and with each of the first and second passive vibration compensation blocks being identical in structure to the exemplary passive vibration compensation block (Norris: 502, 504, 506, 508, 510, 516, fig 9), such that the first and second passive vibration compensation blocks respectively are configured to passively reduce vibrations generated in the first and second cantilevered bar segments when the first and second cantilevered bar segments move from the first station (Wiesing: 3, fig 1) to the second station (Wiesing: 5, fig 1), as taught by Norris, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to absorb vibrations generated in the first and second cantilevered bar segments when the first and second cantilevered bar segments move from the first station to the second station, thus enabling a more stable operation of the conveyor apparatus.
Wiesing, as modified by Herbermann and Norris with respect to claim 1 above, does not teach the conveyor apparatus, wherein the first passive vibration compensation block is attached to a free end of the first cantilevered bar segment furthest from the support, and the second passive vibration compensation block is attached to a free end of the second cantilevered bar segment furthest from the support.
Since it is commonly known in the art that the maximum vibration amplitude of a cantilevered bar segment occurs at the free end, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to attach the first passive vibration compensation block (Norris: 502, 504, 506, 508, 510, 516, fig 9) to a free end of the first cantilevered bar segment (Wiesing: 117L, fig 3) furthest from the support (Wiesing: 113, fig 3; alternatively, Wiesing: 101, 111, 113, fig 3) and attach the second passive vibration compensation block (Norris: 502, 504, 506, 508, 510, 516, fig 9) to a free end of the second cantilevered bar segment (Wiesing: 117R, fig 3) furthest from the support, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The motivation would have been to efficiently dampen and control vibrations at the two free ends of the first and second cantilevered bar segments, preventing them from propagating along the first and second cantilevered bar segments and potentially causing damage or instability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Wiesing, Herbermann, and Norris to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the first passive vibration compensation block includes a first structure (Norris: 502, fig 9) containing a first floating mass (Norris: 506, fig 9), a first damper (Norris: 510, fig 9) and a first elastic element (Norris: 508, fig 9), the first elastic element being fixed to the first floating mass and to the first structure (Norris: see Figure 9), the second vibration compensation block includes a second structure (Norris: 502, fig 9) containing a second floating mass (Norris: 506, fig 9), a second damper (Norris: 510, fig 9) and a second elastic element (Norris: 508, fig 9), the second elastic element being fixed to the second floating mass and to the second structure (Norris: see Figure 9).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the first elastic element of the first vibration compensation block is arranged perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the first cantilevered bar segment (Norris: see Figure 9; Wiesing: see Figure 3), and the second elastic element of the second vibration compensation block is arranged perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the second cantilevered bar segment (Norris: see Figure 9; Wiesing: see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the longitudinal axis of the first cantilevered bar segment extends horizontally and the first elastic element of the first passive vibration compensation block extends vertically (Norris: see Figure 9; Wiesing: see Figure 3), and the longitudinal axis of the second cantilevered bar segment extends horizontally and the second elastic element of the second passive vibration compensation block extends vertically (Norris: see Figure 9; Wiesing: see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the first damper and the first elastic element are arranged in parallel to one another (Norris: see Figure 9), the first damper being an element fixed between the first floating mass and the first structure (Norris: see Figure 9), the second damper and the second elastic element are arranged in parallel to one another (Norris: see Figure 9), the second damper being an element fixed between the second floating mass and the second structure (Norris: see Figure 9).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the first and second passive vibration compensation blocks are identical in structure to one another (Norris: see Figures 7 and 9).
Regarding claim 14, the conveyor apparatus further comprising a first tool actuator (Wiesing: 205L, fig 15) attached to the first cantilevered bar segment (Wiesing: see Figures 3 and 15, e.g., via at least the X-1 axis body 113) and configured to move the first tool with respect to the first cantilevered bar segment in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the first cantilevered bar segment (Wiesing: see Figures 3 and 15, see translation, paragraphs 0033 and 0041), and a second tool actuator (Wiesing: see translation, paragraphs 0033, 0040, and 0041, see claim 9, the Y drive 205R of the right drive 200R that is identical to the Y drive 205L of the left drive 200L) attached to the second cantilevered bar segment (Wiesing: see Figures 3 and 15, e.g., via at least the X-1 axis body 113) and configured to move the second tool with respect to the second cantilevered bar segment in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the second cantilevered bar segment (Wiesing: see Figures 3 and 15, see translation, paragraphs 0033, 0040, and 0041, see claim 9).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the first tool actuator is arranged above the first cantilevered bar segment (Wiesing: see Figures 3 and 15, see translation, paragraphs 0033 and 0041) and the second tool actuator is arranged above the second cantilevered bar segment (Wiesing: see Figures 3 and 15, see translation, paragraphs 0033, 0040, and 0041, see claim 9)..
Regarding claim 16, wherein the support is an articulated arm (Wiesing: 101, 111, 113, fig 3, also see Figures 10, 11, and 15) configured to be coupled to a structure of the press installation (Wiesing: see Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 20, Wiesing, as modified by Herbermann and Norris (see above discussions with respect to claim 1), teaches a press installation (Wiesing: 1, fig 1) comprising:
a first station (Wiesing: 3, fig 1);
a second station (Wiesing: 5, fig 1) arranged downstream of the first station in a forward movement direction (Wiesing: see Figure 1), at least one of the first and second stations being a press station (Wiesing: translation, paragraph 0023) configured to perform a pressing operation on a workpiece (Wiesing: 12, fig 2, translation, paragraph 0023);
a conveyor apparatus (Wiesing: 100, fig 3) configured to convey the workpiece from the first station to the second station (Wiesing: see Figures 1-3), the conveyor apparatus comprising:
a support (Wiesing: 113, fig 3; alternatively, Wiesing: 101, 111, 113, fig 3);
a first cantilevered bar segment (Wiesing: 117L, fig 3) supported by the support and located on a first side of the support (Wiesing: see Figure 3) and a second cantilevered bar segment (Wiesing: 117R, fig 3) supported by the support and located on a second side of the support (Wiesing: see Figure 3), each of the first and second cantilevered bar segments having a longitudinal axis (Wiesing: see Figure 3) and being movable at least in the forward movement direction between the first station and the second station (Wiesing: see Figures 1-7);
a first tool (Wiesing: 119L, fig 3) attached to the first cantilevered bar segment (Wiesing: see Figure 3), the first tool having a second longitudinal axis (Wiesing: see Figure 3) and at least one suction cup (Wiesing: 1191, fig 9, see annotation, the grippers of the gripping device 119L, as modified by, Herbermann: 26, fig 1) configured to hold the workpiece (Herbermann: see Figure 1; Wiesing: see Figure 9);
a second tool (Wiesing: 119R, fig 3) attached to the second cantilevered bar segment (Wiesing: see Figure 3), the second tool having a third longitudinal axis (Wiesing: see Figure 3) and having at least one suction cup (Wiesing: 1192, fig 9, see annotation, the grippers of the gripping device 119R, as modified by, Herbermann: 28, fig 1) configured to hold the workpiece (Herbermann: see Figure 1; Wiesing: see Figure 9); and
a first passive vibration compensation block (Norris: 502, 504, 506, 508, 510, 516, fig 9) attached to a free end of the first cantilevered bar segment furthest from the support (Wiesing: see Figure 3; Norris: see Figures 7 and 9; see discussions with respect to claim 1 directed to the arrangement, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70); and
a second passive vibration compensation block (Norris: 502, 504, 506, 508, 510, 516, fig 9) attached to a free end of the second cantilevered bar segment furthest from the support (Wiesing: see Figure 3; Norris: see Figures 7 and 9; see discussions with respect to claim 1 directed to the arrangement, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70),
the first and second passive vibration compensation blocks respectively being configured to passively reduce vibrations generated in the first and second cantilevered bar segments when the first and second cantilevered bar segments move from the first station to the second station (Wiesing: see Figure 3; Norris: see Figure 9).
Regarding claim 22, wherein the first cantilevered bar segment and the second cantilevered bar segment are two different elements (Wiesing: see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 24, wherein the first cantilevered bar segment and the second cantilevered bar segment are two different elements (Wiesing: see Figure 3).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiesing et al. (EP 3718659 A1), hereinafter Wiesing, in view of Herbermann et al. (US 5,733,097), hereinafter Herbermann, and Norris et al. (US 10,422,442 B2), hereinafter Norris, and VanderZee et al. (US 5,979,212), hereinafter VanderZee.
Regarding claim 18, Wiesing, as modified by Herbermann and Norris with respect to claim 1, teaches the conveyor apparatus, wherein the support is a beam (Wiesing: 113, fig 3) configured to be attached to a structure of the press installation (Wiesing: see Figures 1-3), the beam having a fourth longitudinal axis extending in the forward movement direction and transverse to the longitudinal axis of each of the first and second cantilevered bar segments (Wiesing: see Figures 1-3), the conveyor apparatus is configured to longitudinally move the first and second cantilevered bar segments with respect to the support in the forward movement direction (Wiesing: see Figures 1-7, see translation, paragraphs 0031 and 0032) and configured to move the support vertically (Wiesing: see Figures 3-5, see translation, paragraphs 0027 and 0030).
Wiesing, as modified by Herbermann and Norris with respect to claim 1, does not teach the conveyor apparatus, further comprising a first linear actuator configured to longitudinally move the first and second cantilevered bar segments with respect to the support in the forward movement direction and a second linear actuator configured to move the support vertically.
VanderZee teaches a conveyor apparatus (42b, fig 10) comprising: a support (234, fig 10); a crossbar (130, fig 10) attached to the support and having a first longitudinal axis (see Figures 4 and 10); a first linear actuator (246, fig 10) configured to longitudinally move the crossbar with respect to the support in a forward movement direction (see Figures 4 and 10, see col 14, lines 60-67, col 15, lines 1-13); and a second linear actuator (230, fig 10) configured to move the support vertically (see Figures 4 and 10, see col 14, lines 44-59).
VanderZee is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., conveyor apparatuses. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the conveyor apparatus (Wiesing: 100, fig 3) with a first linear actuator (VanderZee: 246, fig 10) configured to longitudinally move the first and second cantilevered bar segments (Wiesing: 117L, 117R, fig 3) with respect to the support (Wiesing: 113, fig 3) in the forward movement direction (VanderZee: see Figures 4 and 10, see col 14, lines 60-67, col 15, lines 1-13; Wiesing: see Figures 1-7, see translation, paragraphs 0031 and 0032) and a second linear actuator (VanderZee: 230, fig 10) configured to move the support vertically (VanderZee: see Figures 4 and 10, see col 14, lines 44-59; Wiesing: see Figures 3-5, see translation, paragraphs 0027 and 0030), as taught by VanderZee, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to allow automatic longitudinal adjustment of the first and second cantilevered bar segments with respect to the support and allow automatic vertical adjustment of the support. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wiesing, Herbermann, Norris, and VanderZee to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, wherein the first and second passive vibration compensation blocks are respectively configured to reduce vibrations generated in the first and second cantilevered bar segments during a vertical movement of the first and second cantilevered bar segments when vertical movement of the support is caused by the second linear actuator (Wiesing: see Figure 3; Norris: see Figure 9; VanderZee: see Figures 4 and 10, see col 14, lines 44-59).
Claims 21 and 23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiesing et al. (EP 3718659 A1), hereinafter Wiesing, in view of Herbermann et al. (US 5,733,097), hereinafter Herbermann, and Norris et al. (US 10,422,442 B2), hereinafter Norris, and Lin et al. (US 8,857,877 B2), hereinafter Lin.
Regarding claim 21, Wiesing, as modified by Herbermann and Norris with respect to claim 1, does not teach the conveyor apparatus, wherein the first cantilever bar segment and the second cantilevered bar segment are a single element.
Lin teaches a conveyor apparatus (10, fig 1) comprising: a first cantilevered bar segment (72, fig 1, the limb 72 on the right side); and a second cantilevered bar segment (72, fig 1, the limb 72 on the left side); wherein the first cantilever bar segment and the second cantilevered bar segment are linked to form a single element (see Figure 1, see col 3, lines 23-25).
Lin is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., conveyor apparatuses. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to link the first and second cantilevered bar segments (Wiesing: 117L, 117R, fig 3) to form a single element (Lin: see Figure 1, see col 3, lines 23-25), as taught by Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to allow the first and second cantilevered bar segments to move in concert with each other in environments strictly requiring integrity and synchronized movements of the first and second cantilevered bar segments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wiesing, Herbermann, Norris, and Lin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, Wiesing, as modified by Herbermann, Norris, and Lin (see above discussions with respect to claims 1 and 21), teaches the conveyor apparatus, wherein the first cantilever bar segment and the second cantilevered bar segment are a single element (Lin: see Figure 1, see col 3, lines 23-25).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 PM).
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631
1 A copy of Wiesing, including a translation, was attached to the Office action mailed 07/23/2025.
Prosecution Insights