DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/28/2026 with regard to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the argument that the combination of Jeong, Holt, and Daum does not disclose the features of the previously presented claim 3. Daum functions by separating the arms/rods to position a frame within the contacting jaws, as applied to the system of Jeong and modified by Holt, the entire system (as taught by Jeong) operates to separate a singular hive frame from a bee/hive box filled with frames. As such the claim limitation is met and stands rejected.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 5-9, & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je in view of Daum, U.S. Patent No. 2,997,326 A, herein Dam and Holt, U.S. Patent No. 453,905 A.
Re claim 1, Je discloses a method comprising:
(a) lowering a pair of mechanical rods (410; the operating arms, fig. 2-3) into inter-frame spaces (fig. 3, the space between each frame) on each side of a single hive frame in a beehive (fig. 2 and para 54-57, the operating arms extend downward to grip both sides of the target parts of a frame of the beehive);
(b) separating the single hive frame from an adjacent frame (fig. 2 and para 50 & 54-58, the singular “beehive” or frame is lifted from the bee box which holds a plurality of adjacent “beehives” or frames, see para 32);
(c) decreasing a distance between downward facing jaws of a motorized clamp (410; the operating arms, fig. 2-3) until said jaws engage and retain the single hive frame (para 70-72, the arms are adjusted in the horizontal direction to properly space them between the hives), at least a bar thereof (fig. 2, the frame is hooked at the top bar); and
(d) lifting said motorized hooks (para 72, once hooked the arms lift the frame of the beehive vertically to withdraw it from the bee box).
Je fails to disclose the separation of the single hive frame from an adjacent frame being accomplished by at least one of: (i) increasing a distance between the rods to separate the single frame from adjacent frames; and (ii) moving the single hive frame sideways in a first direction horizontally and perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the single hive frame, and moving the single frame sideways in a second direction horizontally and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis, two pairs of mechanical rods and said jaws engaging and retaining the single hive frame at, the side bar thereof, and wherein said side bar is perpendicular to a top bar of the single hive frame. However, Dam discloses two pairs of mechanical rods (10a; the downwardly directed legs, fig. 1-2) associated with a pair of downward facing jaws (10i & 16j; the coacting jaws, fig. 1-2) that engage and retain a single hive frame at, at least a bar thereof (fig. 2 and col 1; 28-31, wherein the comb foundation frame is being gripped) and the single hive frame being engaged by increasing a distance between the rods to allow for separation of the single frame (Dam; page 1; 13-27, wherein the jaw opening by having the operating arms move apart to clamp the jaw portions and engage the frame).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the separation of the single hive frame from an adjacent frame being accomplished by at least one of: (i) increasing a distance between the rods to separate the single frame from adjacent frames; and (ii) moving the single hive frame sideways in a first direction horizontally and perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the single hive frame, and moving the single frame sideways in a second direction horizontally and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis, two pairs of mechanical rods and said jaws engaging and retaining the single hive frame at, the side bar thereof, and wherein said side bar is perpendicular to a top bar of the single hive frame however, Dam discloses a gripping device with a pair of mechanical rods for engaging a single hive frame by increasing a distance between the rods to separate the single frame from adjacent frames. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the two pairs of operating rods taught by Dam to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing precise gripping. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
The combination of Je and Dam fails to disclose said jaws engaging and retaining the single hive frame at, the side bar thereof, wherein said side bar is perpendicular to a top bar of the single hive frame. However, Holt discloses decreasing a distance between downward facing jaws of a until said jaws engage and retain a single hive frame at, at least, a side bar thereof, said side bar is perpendicular to a top bar of the single hive frame (page 1 ; 83-98, the jaws are clamped around the top and sides of the comb frame being gripped).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose said jaws engaging and retaining the single hive frame at, the side bar thereof, wherein said side bar is perpendicular to a top bar of the single hive frame however, Holt discloses gripping both the top and side bar to lift the comb frame. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of gripping a larger surface area of the comb frame as taught by Holt to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by having the jaws grip both the side bars and top bar. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 2, the combination of Je, Dam, and Holt discloses the invention of claim 1, Je modified by Dam and Holt further discloses wherein said rods are provided as part of said downward facing jaws (Dam, col 1-2; 71-26, wherein the legs are joined to the jaw components).
Re claim 5, the combination of Je, Dam, and Holt discloses the invention of claim 1, Je as modified by Dam and Holt further discloses using a robotic arm (Je; 414; the moving blocks, fig. 3) attached to said pair of jaws (Je; para 55, each moving block is fixed to the operating arm which carry the respective motorized clamp/pair of jaws) to transfer (Je; para 70-74, the frame is moved) said hive frame to a processing unit (Je; 500; the bee separation unit, para 65, the process of removing bees from the hive frame).
Re claim 6, the combination of Je, Dam, and Holt discloses the invention of claim 5, Je as modified by Dam and Holt further discloses wherein said processing unit includes a treatment module (Je; 510; the bee separation brushes, para 66, the brushes provide the treatment of removing the bees from the frame).
Re claim 7, the combination of Je, Dam, and Holt discloses the invention of claim 5, Je as modified by Dam and Holt further discloses using the robotic arm attached to said at least one pair of jaws to transfer said hive frame from said processing unit back to said beehive (Je; para 70-74, once the frame is lifted and brushed the control unit drives the frame down into the bee box).
Re claim 8, the combination of Je, Dam, and Holt discloses the invention of claim 1, Je as modified by Dam and Holt further discloses wherein said inter-frame spaces are between adjacent top bars of hive frames proximal to side bars of said hive frames in the beehive (Je; fig. 3-4, the target parts are protruding from the edges of the top of the frame).
Re claim 9, the combination of Je, Dam, and Holt discloses the invention of claim 1, Je as modified by Dam and Holt further discloses using a linear actuator for and decreasing said distance (Je; para 59-64 & 70-74, the arms are moved down by linear actuation of the motor system).
Re claim 11, Je discloses a system comprising:
a plurality of honeycomb frames (15; the beehive, fig. 3-4) included in a habitat (10; the bee box, fig. 1-4);
a robotic arm (411; the shafts, fig. 2-3) including at least one pair of jaws (para 56-57, the gripper structure attached at 410; the operating arms, fig. 2-3); and
a controller (600; the control unit, fig. 1) adapted to cause the robotic arm to:
lower (para 70-72, the operating arms move vertically down such that the target parts are attached to the operating arms) the at least one pair of jaws into an inter-frame space (fig. 3, between each frame) on each side of a single hive frame (fig. 2 and para 54-57, the operating arms extend downward to grip both sides of the target parts of a frame of the beehive);
separate the single hive frame from an adjacent frame (fig. 2 and para 50 & 54-58, the singular “beehive” or frame is lifted from the bee box which holds a plurality of adjacent “beehives” or frames, see para 32);
decrease a distance between the least one pair of jaws until said jaws engage and retain the single hive frame at (para 70-72, the arms are adjusted in the horizontal direction to properly space them between the hives), at least a side bar thereof (fig. 2, the frame is hooked at the upper side bar); and
lift said jaws and the engaged hive frame (para 72, once hooked the arms lift the frame of the beehive vertically to withdraw it from the bee box).
Je fails to disclose the separation of the single hive frame from an adjacent frame being accomplished by at least one of: (i) increasing a distance between the rods to separate the single frame from adjacent frames; and (ii) moving the single hive frame sideways in a first direction horizontally and perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the single hive frame, and moving the single frame sideways in a second direction horizontally and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis, two pairs of mechanical rods and said jaws engaging and retaining the single hive frame at, the side bar thereof, and wherein said side bar is perpendicular to a top bar of the single hive frame and said jaws engaging and retaining the single hive frame at, the side bar thereof, wherein said side bar is perpendicular to a top bar of the single hive frame. However, Dam discloses a system configured to engage a single hive frame by increasing a distance between two pairs of mechanical rods (10a; the downwardly directed legs, fig. 1-2) to allow for separation of the single frame (Dam; page 1; 13-27, wherein the jaw opening by having the operating arms move apart to clamp the jaw portions and engage the frame).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the separation of the single hive frame from an adjacent frame being accomplished by at least one of: (i) increasing a distance between the rods to separate the single frame from adjacent frames; and (ii) moving the single hive frame sideways in a first direction horizontally and perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the single hive frame, and moving the single frame sideways in a second direction horizontally and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis, two pairs of mechanical rods and said jaws engaging and retaining the single hive frame at, the side bar thereof, and wherein said side bar is perpendicular to a top bar of the single hive frame and said jaws engaging and retaining the single hive frame at, the side bar thereof, wherein said side bar is perpendicular to a top bar of the single hive frame however, Dam discloses increasing a distance between the rods to allow for the separation of the single frame. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the two pairs of operating rods taught by Dam to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing precise gripping. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
The combination of Je and Dam fails to disclose said jaws engaging and retaining the single hive frame at, the side bar thereof, wherein said side bar is perpendicular to a top bar of the single hive frame. However, Holt discloses decreasing a distance between downward facing jaws of a until said jaws engage and retain a single hive frame at, at least, a side bar thereof, said side bar is perpendicular to a top bar of the single hive frame (page 1 ; 83-98, the jaws are clamped around the top and sides of the comb frame being gripped).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose said jaws engaging and retaining the single hive frame at, the side bar thereof, wherein said side bar is perpendicular to a top bar of the single hive frame however, Holt discloses gripping both the top and side bar to lift the comb frame. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of gripping a larger surface area of the comb frame as taught by Holt to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by having the jaws grip both the side bars and top bar. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je in view of Dam and Holt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harrison, U.S. Patent No. 3,290,705 A.
Re claim 4, the combination of Je, Dam, and Holt discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination fails to disclose shaking the hive frame while the jaws of said motorized clamp engage said hive frame. However, Harrison discloses shaking a hive frame (18; the open rectangular honeycomb frame, fig. 4-6) while jaws of a motorized clamp engage said hive frame (col 6; 45-67, the super, which contains the frames, is engaged by the rams such that the predetermined oscillatory motion is applied).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose shaking the hive frame while the jaws of said motorized clamp engage said hive frame however, Harrison discloses applying an oscillatory motion to the frame after an uncapping step. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of applying the oscillatory motion taught by Harrison to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by simplifying the decapping process (Harrison, col 9; 42-48). See MPEP 2143 I. (C) & (G).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je in view of Dam and Holt as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Harrison.
Re claim 12, the combination of Je and Holt discloses the invention of claim 11, Je further discloses transferring (para 69-74, the frame is brought up to the separation unit from the bee box) said hive frame to a processing unit (500; the bee separation unit, para 65, the process of removing bees from the hive frame); and transferring (para 70-74, once the frame is lifted and brushed the control unit drives the frame down into the bee box) said hive frame from the processing unit to the habitat (Je; para 70-74, once the frame is lifted and brushed the control unit drives the frame down into the bee box).
The combination of Je and Holt fails to disclose shaking the hive frame while the jaws engage said hive frame. However, Harrison discloses shaking a hive frame (18; the open rectangular honeycomb frame, fig. 4-6) while jaws engage said hive frame (col 6; 45-67, the super, which contains the frames, is engaged by the rams such that the predetermined oscillatory motion is applied).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose shaking the hive frame while the jaws engage said hive frame however, Harrison discloses applying an oscillatory motion to the frame after an uncapping step. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of applying the oscillatory motion taught by Harrison to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by simplifying the decapping process (Harrison, col 9; 42-48). See MPEP 2143 I. (C) & (G).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Je in view of Dam and Holt as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Anderson, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0035651 A1, herein Son.
Re claim 21, the combination of Je, Dam, and Holt discloses the invention of claim 5, the combination fails to disclose wherein said processing unit includes an inspection unit using one or more sensors comprising at least one of: a camera, a chemical sensor, a sound sensor, weighing scale, and a motion sensor. However, Son discloses wherein said processing unit includes an inspection unit using one or more sensors comprising a camera (para 167, the frames are clear and a camera is utilized to convey images to a remote location to allow a user to see is a frame is full, capped, and ready for extraction).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein said processing unit includes an inspection unit using one or more sensors comprising at least one of: a camera, a chemical sensor, a sound sensor, weighing scale, and a motion sensor however, Son discloses such a camera. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the clear components and the camera taught by Son to the hive leading to the processing unit of the prior art to yield the predictable result of an inspection unit providing a visual indication of if a specific frame is ready for extraction. See MPEP 2143 I (A).
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 NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm EST.
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, Joshua J Michener can be reached on 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights