DETAILED ACTION
The response dated 01/15/2026 has been entered and is treated as below.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert (US4815311A) in view of Ebert et al. (US20210284204A1).
Claims 2, 3 and 5 are canceled.
Regarding claim 1, Schubert discloses A workpiece manipulator (See attached annotated Fig.) for use with a radial forging press (Column 1, lines 10-15 explains the intend use which mentioned turning and axial movement), comprising:
workpiece tongs (See attached annotated Fig.) configured to hold a workpiece during radial forging, the workpiece tongs (4) being attached to
a manipulator frame (See attached annotated Fig.) guided linearly on a manipulator track (See attached annotated Fig.), and
the workpiece tongs (See attached annotated Fig.) forming a chuck with a fixed clamping axis that extends in a forging axis (tongs 19, can be seen in attached Fig. which are able to form chuck with a fixed or free axis), so that the workpiece can be manipulated with a linear translational movement (Workpiece manipulator of attached Fig. is able to manipulate the workpiece with a liner translation movement by running in or out of forge on track),
wherein the manipulator frame (See attached annotated Fig.) is guided rail-bound on wheels (See attached annotated Fig.) during the linear translational movement (It can be seen in attached annotated Fig.),
wherein the manipulator frame comprises a chassis having wheel carriers, including two front wheel carriers proximal to the workpiece tongs (See attached annotated Fig.) and two rear wheel carriers distal from the workpiece tongs (See attached annotated Fig.)
Schubert explicitly fails to disclose the wheel carriers are each articulated pivotably on the manipulator frame.
However, Ebert et al. teaches that the wheel carries (element 2) are each articulated pivotably on axel (element 7, which is mounted on main frame 3a, this rail wheels are teaching the concept of wheels can be articulated pivotably on the frame to follow the curve on the rail roads).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Schubert by incorporating the wheel carriers are each articulated pivotably on the manipulator frame in view of Ebert et al. to improve mobility of the workpiece manipulator for radial forging.
PNG
media_image1.png
659
1030
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Schubert discloses the front wheel carrier includes the plurality of the wheels (See attached annotated Fig) except for each wheel carrier includes with a plurality of the wheels
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention was made to have modified each wheel carrier includes with a plurality of the wheels by duplicating the elements, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 6, Schubert fails to disclose the two front wheel carriers are each provided with spring and/or damper elements.
Ebert et al. teaches wheel carriers are each provided with spring and/or damper elements (2, 4a, 4b, 5, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Schubert by incorporating the two front wheel carriers are each provided with spring and/or damper elements in view of Ebert et al. in order to improve the stability and reduce the socks of the workpiece manipulator for radial forging under load condition.
Regarding claim 7, Schubert fails to disclose wherein each running wheel carrier is supported with a plurality of spring and/or damper elements on the manipulator frame.
Ebert et al. teaches each running wheel carrier (element 2) is supported with a plurality of spring and/or damper elements (5, 4a, 4b and 6) on the main frame (element 3a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Schubert by incorporating each running wheel carrier is supported with a plurality of spring and/or damper elements on the manipulator frame in view of Ebert et al. (For motivation purpose see rejection of claim 6).
Regarding claim 8, Schubert discloses the workpiece tongs comprise a plurality of tongs jaws (element 19) arranged at equal distances on a radius around the fixed clamping axis (It can be seen attached annotated Fig.).
Regarding claim 9, combination of Schubert and Ebert et al. discloses a system comprising: the workpiece manipulator according to claim 1; and the manipulator track (See attached annotated Fig.), having with at least two guide rails laid in a floor level (See attached annotated Fig, and Column 3, lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 11, combination of Schubert and Ebert et al. teaches each of the two front wheel carriers includes two of the wheels and one or two of the spring and/or damper elements except for each of the two front wheel carriers includes four of the wheels and four of the spring and/or damper elements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention was made to have modified each of the two front wheel carriers includes four of the wheels and four of the spring and/or damper elements by duplicating the elements, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 5, Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 103 - Ebert is not prior art. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 103 - Ebert is prior art.
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. The examiner must determine whether a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention when analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter under examination (See MPEP section 2141.01(a) roman numerical I & IV).
One of the limitations of claim 1 recites “frame is guided rail-bound on the wheels” in line 9, furthermore one of the limitations of claim 9 recites “track having at least two guided rails laid on the floor level” in line 13 which reads on the railway track as per BRI.
On the basis of the above recited structure in the claims limitations, Ebert et al. belongs to rail art and considered as a same filed of endeavor which meets the one of the requirements to qualify as analogues art. It is obvious to ordinary skilled person in art to search in the railway track area as per the above recited structure in the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAIMIN G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 517-272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JAIMIN G PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3652