DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office action in response to the amendment filed 10/22/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 6, 10, 12, 14-16, and 18-20 are pending;
Claims 1-3, 6, 12, 14, 19, and 20 are currently amended; claims 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, and 17 have been cancelled; claims 10, 15, 16, and 18 are original;
Claims 1-3, 6, 10, 12, 14-16, and 18-20 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments on page 8 of the remarks,
"Claim interpretation involves interpreting the claim language in the context of the patent's specification, drawings, and the knowledge of a person skilled in the relevant art. Throughout the entirety of the specification examples of a crossbar are taught that do not limit the crossbar to a singular bar. The use of the term 'crossbar' in the claims is consistent with its use in the remaining portions of the specification and should carry with it a definition consistent with what is disclosed in the written description and drawings."
have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Where Applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the instant case, the term "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6) is commonly known to be "[a] horizontal bar, line, or stripe" (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/crossbar, last accessed 07/17/2025), where the article "a" is commonly known to be "[u]sed before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing" (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/a, last accessed 01/30/2026). In other words, the ordinary meaning of the claim limitation "a crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6) is --a single horizontal bar, line, or stripe--. However, Applicant uses the claim limitation "a crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6) to describe two separate and spaced-part horizontal bars, i.e., the first segment (11) and the second segment (12). Also see annotations below.
[AltContent: textbox (The first segment (11) and the second segment (12) do not constitute a single horizontal bar, which the claim limitation "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6) ordinarily means.)][AltContent: textbox (11 – First Segment)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
328
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (The support (3) separates the first segment (11) from the second segment (12), wherein the support (3) is not a structural component of the claimed "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6).)][AltContent: textbox (12 – Second Segment)]
[AltContent: textbox (The support (3) separates the first segment (11) from the second segment (12), wherein the support (3) is not a structural component of the claimed "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6).)]
PNG
media_image2.png
594
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (11 – First Segment)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (12 – Second Segment)]
[AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (The first segment (11) and the second segment (12) do not constitute a single horizontal bar, which the claim limitation "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6) ordinarily means.)]
As shown in the annotated Figures 4 and 7 above, the support (3) separates the first segment (11) from the second segment (12), wherein the support (3) is not a structural component of the claimed "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6). In other words, the first segment (11) and the second segment (12) do not constitute a single crossbar, which the term "crossbar" ordinarily means. Although Applicant can act as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description of the present application does not clearly redefine the claim term, i.e., the claim limitation "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6), and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. For example, an uncommon definition of the claim limitation "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6) is not clearly provided in the specification of the present application. Mere "examples of a crossbar" in the written description of the present application are insufficient to clearly redefine the claim term, i.e., the claim limitation "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6), and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Therefore, the claim limitation "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6) is indefinite because the specification does not clearly define the term.
Applicant's arguments on page 9 of the remarks,
"Moreover, the definition of 'crossbar' relied on by the Office is found at www.thefreedictionary.com/crossbar. The definition is "a horizontal bar". There is nothing in this definition that requires the horizontal bar to be a singular bar. In fact, the website cites an example use of the term 'horizontal bar' to be 'the horizontal bar of the goalpost, as in football and soccer.' It is well known that some football goalposts are made from two L-shaped segments joined together with the horizontal bar comprising a part of each of the L-shaped segments. Hence, even the dictionary definition of 'crossbar' has been improperly interpreted by the Office to require a singular structure."
have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As previously mentioned, the term "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6) is commonly known to be "[a] horizontal bar, line, or stripe" (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/crossbar, last accessed 07/17/2025), where the article "a" is commonly known to be "[u]sed before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing" (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/a, last accessed 01/30/2026). In other words, the ordinary meaning of the claim limitation "a crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6) is --a single horizontal bar, line, or stripe--. However, Applicant uses the claim limitation "a crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6) to describe two separate and spaced-part horizontal bars, i.e., the first segment (11) and the second segment (12). As shown in the annotated Figures 4 and 7 above, the support (3) separates the first segment (11) from the second segment (12), wherein the support (3) is not a structural component of the claimed "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6). In other words, the first segment (11) and the second segment (12) do not constitute a single crossbar, which the term "crossbar" ordinarily means. Whatever configuration of "the horizontal bar of the goalpost" alleged to have does not change the fact that, while Applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description of the present application does not clearly redefine the claim term, i.e., the claim limitation "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6), and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term.
Applicant's arguments on page 10 of the remarks,
"In the present case the Office has not identified in any of the cited prior art, either individually or collectively, the features of original claim 13. For at least this reason, as noted in the preceding paragraph, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established, and the obviousness rejection is improper. Moreover, because none of Weising, Herbermann and Norris discloses the features of original claim 13, no rearrangement of their parts can achieve the invention of amended claims 1 and 20 (which now incorporate the limitations of claim 13)."
have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The features of the original claim 13 are clearly identified and discussed on pages 15 and 16 of the Office action mailed 07/23/2025.
Applicant's arguments on page 10 of the remarks,
"In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86US1Q 70 (CCPA 1950) held that claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of [he starting switch were unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) The Office has provided no rationale as to how the facts of In re Japikse apply to the placement of first and second passive vibration compensation blocks in a conveyor apparatus that transports workpieces from one pressing station to another. For this reason, the rejection of claim 13 was improper.
have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rationale to sufficiently show obviousness of the subject matter of the original claim 13 is provided on pages 15 and 16 of the Office action mailed 07/23/2025.
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 "a crossbar" (claim 1, line 6; claim 20, line 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Note that the term "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6) is commonly known to be "[a] horizontal bar, line, or stripe" (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/crossbar, last accessed 07/17/2025), where the article "a" is commonly known to be "[u]sed before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing" (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/a, last accessed 01/30/2026). In other words, the ordinary meaning of the claim limitation "a crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6) is --a single horizontal bar, line, or stripe--. However, the drawings merely show two separate and spaced-part horizontal bars, i.e., the first segment (11) and the second segment (12). Also see annotations below.
[AltContent: textbox (The first segment (11) and the second segment (12) do not constitute a single horizontal bar, which the claim limitation "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6) ordinarily means.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
328
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (The support (3) separates the first segment (11) from the second segment (12), wherein the support (3) is not a structural component of the claimed "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6).)][AltContent: textbox (12 – Second Segment)][AltContent: textbox (11 – First Segment)]
[AltContent: textbox (The support (3) separates the first segment (11) from the second segment (12), wherein the support (3) is not a structural component of the claimed "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6).)]
PNG
media_image2.png
594
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (12 – Second Segment)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (11 – First Segment)]
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (The first segment (11) and the second segment (12) do not constitute a single horizontal bar, which the claim limitation "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6) ordinarily means.)][AltContent: arrow]
As shown in the annotated Figures 4 and 7 above, the support (3) separates the first segment (11) from the second segment (12), wherein the support (3) is not a structural component of the claimed "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6). In other words, the first segment (11) and the second segment (12) do not constitute a single crossbar, which the term "crossbar" ordinarily means. Therefore, the drawings fail to show "a crossbar" (claim 1, line 6; claim 20, line 9) as claimed.
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
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 3, line 3, "second vibration" appears to be --second passive vibration--.
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 1-3, 6, 10, 12, 14-16, and 18-20 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 1, where Applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6) is indefinite because the specification does not clearly define the term. In particular, the accepted meaning of the term "crossbar" is "[a] horizontal bar, line, or stripe" (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/crossbar, last accessed 07/17/2025). In other words, the term "crossbar" is commonly known to refer to one single horizontal bar, line, or strip. However, the term "crossbar" in claim 1 (line 6) is used by the claim to mean two separate and spaced-apart horizontal bars, i.e., the first segment (11) and the second segment (12). As shown in Figures 3, 4, and 7, the support (3) separates the first segment (11) from the second segment (12), thus resulting in two separate and spaced-apart horizontal bars, instead of one single horizontal bar having two segments as claimed. The separate and spaced-apart first and second segments (11, 12) clearly do not form a crossbar as claimed. Similar rejection applies to the term "crossbar" in claim 20 (line 9). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation "the elastic element" in claim 2 (line 3) is indefinite. Note that claim 2 recites "each of the first and second passive vibration compensation blocks includes a structure containing a floating mass, a damper and an elastic element" in lines 1-3. As such, it is not clear as to whose elastic element (i.e., the elastic element of the first passive vibration compensation block or the elastic element of the second passive vibration compensation block) the limitation "the elastic element" in claim 2 (line 3) refers to. Similar rejection applies to the limitation "the elastic element" in claim 10 (lines 1 and 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation "the floating mass" in claim 2 (line 3) is indefinite. Note that claim 2 recites "each of the first and second passive vibration compensation blocks includes a structure containing a floating mass, a damper and an elastic element" in lines 1-3. As such, it is not clear as to whose floating mass (i.e., the floating mass of the first passive vibration compensation block or the floating mass of the second passive vibration compensation block) the limitation "the floating mass" in claim 2 (line 3) refers to. Similar rejection applies to the limitation "the floating mass" in claim 10 (lines 2 and 3). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation "the structure" in claim 2 (lines 3 and 4) is indefinite. Note that claim 2 recites "each of the first and second passive vibration compensation blocks includes a structure containing a floating mass, a damper and an elastic element" in lines 1-3. As such, it is not clear as to whose structure (i.e., the structure of the first passive vibration compensation block or the structure of the second passive vibration compensation block) the limitation "the structure" in claim 2 (lines 3 and 4) refers to. Similar rejection applies to the limitation "the structure" in claim 10 (line 3). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10 the limitation "the damper" in claim 10 (line 1) is indefinite. Note that claim 2, from which claim 10 depends, recites "each of the first and second passive vibration compensation blocks includes a structure containing a floating mass, a damper and an elastic element" in lines 1-3. As such, it is not clear as to whose damper (i.e., the damper of the first passive vibration compensation block or the damper of the second passive vibration compensation block) the limitation "the damper" in claim 10 (line 1) refers to. Similar rejection applies to the limitation "the damper" in claim 10 (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 6, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19 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, and 20, 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 crossbar (117L, 117R, fig 3) supported by the support and having a first longitudinal axis (see Figure 3), the crossbar being movable at least in the forward movement direction between the first station and the second station (see Figures 1-7), the crossbar having a first segment (117L, fig 3) located on a first side of the support (see Figure 3) and a second segment (117R, fig 3) located on a second side of the support (see Figure 3);
a first tool (119L, fig 3) attached to the first segment of the crossbar (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 segment of the crossbar (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: textbox (1192 – At Least One Gripper)]
PNG
media_image3.png
516
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1191 – At Least One Gripper)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
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 art 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 an end of the first segment of the crossbar furthest from the support; and a second passive vibration compensation block attached to an end of the second segment of the crossbar furthest from the support, the first and second passive vibration compensation blocks being configured to passively reduce vibrations generated in the crossbar when the crossbar moves 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 segment (Wiesing: 117L, fig 3) of the crossbar (Wiesing: 117L, 117R, fig 3) and attach a second passive vibration compensation block (Norris: 300, fig 1) to the second segment (Wiesing: 117R, fig 3) of the crossbar (Wiesing: 117L, 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 are configured to passively reduce vibrations generated in the crossbar when the crossbar moves 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 crossbar at the first and second segments when the crossbar moves 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 an end of the first segment furthest from the support, and the second passive vibration compensation block is attached to an end of the second segment furthest from the support.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach the first passive vibration compensation block (Norris: 502, 504, 506, 508, 510, 516, fig 9) to an end of the first 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 an end of the second 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 dampen and control vibrations at the two ends of the crossbar, preventing them from propagating along the crossbar 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 each of the first and second passive vibration compensation blocks includes a structure (Norris: 502, fig 9) containing a floating mass (Norris: 506, fig 9), a damper (Norris: 510, fig 9) and an elastic element (Norris: 508, fig 9), the elastic element being fixed to the floating mass and to the structure (Norris: see Figure 9).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the elastic element of each of the first and second vibration compensation blocks is arranged perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis (Norris: see Figure 9; Wiesing: see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the first longitudinal axis extends horizontally (Norris: see Figure 9; Wiesing: see Figure 3) and the elastic element of each of the first and second passive vibration compensation blocks extends vertically (Norris: see Figure 9; Wiesing: see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the damper and the elastic element are arranged in parallel to one another (Norris: see Figure 9), the damper being an element fixed between the floating mass and the 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 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 segment in a direction parallel to the first longitudinal axis (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 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 segment in the direction parallel to the first longitudinal axis (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 segment (Wiesing: see Figures 3 and 15, see translation, paragraphs 0033 and 0041) and the second tool actuator is arranged above the second 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 crossbar (Wiesing: 117L, 117R, fig 3) supported by the support and having a first longitudinal axis (Wiesing: see Figure 3), the crossbar being movable at least in the forward movement direction between the first station and the second station (Wiesing: see Figures 1-7), the crossbar having a first segment (Wiesing: 117L, fig 3) located on a first side of the support (Wiesing: see Figure 3) and a second segment (Wiesing: 117R, fig 3) located on a second side of the support (Wiesing: see Figure 3);
a first tool (Wiesing: 119L, fig 3) attached to the first segment of the crossbar (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 segment of the crossbar (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 an end of the first segment of the crossbar 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 an end of the second segment of the crossbar 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 being configured to passively reduce vibrations generated in the element to which it is attached when the crossbar moves from the first station to the second station (Wiesing: see Figure 3; Norris: see Figure 9).
Claims 18 and 19, 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 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 first longitudinal axis of the crossbar (Wiesing: see Figures 1-3), the conveyor apparatus is configured to longitudinally move the crossbar 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 crossbar 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 crossbar (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 crossbar 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 passive vibration compensation block is configured to reduce vibrations generated in the first segment of the crossbar during a vertical movement of the crossbar 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), and wherein the second passive vibration compensation block is configured to reduce vibrations generated in the second segment of the crossbar 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.