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 Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 9-16, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaandrager (US Pub. 2018/0235190 A1) in view of Eidelberg (US Pub. 2017/0334075 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vaandrager discloses an automatic beehive, comprising:
a hive chamber (Abstract, lines 1-2: “A system ventilation and entrance adjustment for a beehive is provided”) including:
a plurality of bee frames (Pg. 2, [0023], lines 5-7: “Bee hive BH also has interior components that are not shown such as an inner cover on top of the top super, and frames hung in each super”);
an opening enabling bees to exit and enter the hive chamber (Abstract, lines 2-11: “The system includes: a first panel comprising a first cutout and an entrance adjustment portion flanking the first cutout; and a second panel disposed rearward of the first panel and comprising a second cutout. The first panel is slidable relative to the second panel. In a closed configuration the entrance adjustment portion blocks the second cutout to prevent bees from passing through, and in an open configuration the entrance adjustment portion either does not block, or only partially blocks, the second cutout to allow bees to pass through”).
However, Vaandrager fails to disclose as taught by Eidelberg, a cartesian robot adapted to selectively open or close a portion of the opening (Abstract: “An end of arm tool subassembly includes three identical linear drive mechanisms connected directly together to provide three directions of movement. Each linear drive mechanism includes a base defined by a longitudinal axis and a slide movably coupled to the base. The base has at least one mounting surface disposed parallel to the longitudinal axis and an end mounting surface disposed perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. The slide traverses in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis and has a slide mounting surface thereon. One of the identical linear drive mechanisms is directly attached to the end mounting surface of the base of another linear drive mechanism to provide two of the three directions of movement”), the portion is strictly contained in the opening (The portion is referring to some indeterminate percentage of area of the opening. Therefore, the portion is physically incapable of being removed from the opening because it describes a fraction of the surface area of the opening).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manual sliding gate of Vaandrager to include the cartesian robot actuator of Eidelberg to allow for the automatic closing and opening of the beehive entrance to reduce the need for manual intervention.
Regarding claim 2, Vaandrager as modified by Eidelberg discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Vaandrager, wherein the robot is adapted to selectively open or close a at least some of a plurality of portions of the opening (See id).
Regarding claim 3, Vaandrager as modified by Eidelberg discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Eidelberg, wherein the opening is an adjustable opening and wherein the robot is adapted to control the size of the adjustable opening by enlarging or diminishing the adjustable opening (If the opening is able to be closed and opened by an actuator, it meets the description of “adjustable”).
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaandrager (US Pub. 2018/0235190 A1) in view of Eidelberg (US Pub. 2017/0334075 A1), and further in view of Heui (KR Pub. 20120060253A).
Regarding claim 4, Vaandrager as modified by Eidelberg discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Heui, wherein the bee frames are releasably mounted (Fig. 8, collection box 610 has a plurality of frames therein) and wherein the robot is adapted to move frames withing the beehive (Fig. 8, bee separating lift 200).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic beehive of Vaandrager in view of Eidelberg to include the frame moving apparatus of Heui for automatic honey extraction.
Regarding claim 9, Vaandrager as modified by Eidelberg discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Heui, at least one member of a group consisting of:
an automated honey harvesting arrangement, an arrangement for feeding bees, an arrangement for climate control ([0001], line 1: The present invention relates to a device for automatically collecting consumption in a beehive”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic beehive of Vaandrager in view of Eidelberg to include the honey harvesting arrangement of Heui for automatic honey extraction.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaandrager (US Pub. 2018/0235190 A1) in view of Eidelberg (US Pub. 2017/0334075 A1), and further in view of Symes (US Pub. 2020/0267945 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Vaandrager as modified by Eidelberg discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Symes, a controller that, based on data obtained from at least one sensor, determines whether the frame is at least one of: ready to be harvested, infected, and includes at least one of: egg, larvae, sealed larva, queen larva, drone larva, pollen, honey and sealed honey (Pg. 2, [0023], lines 1-9 “The remote data analysis computing device 124 is configured to monitor the data collected by and received from the sensors 104 to determine whether a condition exists such that an action should be taken (e.g., harvesting the produced honey from one or more of the beehives 102, attaching one or more supers to one or more of the beehives 102, moving/placing/ repairing/replacing one or more of the beehives 102, adjusting a feeding schedule, etc.)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic beehive of Vaandrager in view of Eidelberg to include the controller and sensor of Symes to alert the user when the honeycombs are ready for harvesting.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaandrager (US Pub. 2018/0235190 A1) in view of Eidelberg (US Pub. 2017/0334075 A1), and further in view of Kuehl (US Pub. 4,520,519).
Regarding claim 6, Vaandrager as modified by Eidelberg discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Kuehl, similarly drawn to a beekeeping apparatus, a monitoring and operating chamber wherein the robot is adapted to:
insert a frame into the monitoring and operating chamber, and extract the frame from the monitoring chamber (Col. 1, lines 31-47: “The apparatus comprises a vertically movable hoist adapted to support a plurality of supers one upon the other. A super pushoff arm assembly is positioned laterally of the hoist and is off arm assembly is positioned laterally of the hoist and is adapted to push the uppermost super from the stack laterally therefrom into a first super holding area. A vertically movable lift assembly is positioned below the first super holding area and is adapted to push the frames upwardly from the super into a second super holding area. A conveyor conveys the removed frames to a third super holding area at which a scraper assembly scrapes the "burr comb" wax from the top and bottom bars of the frames. Another conveyor conveys the scraped frames laterally from the apparatus to an operator station. The operator will remove the scraped frames from the apparatus and will feed the same to an uncapping mechanism”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic beehive of Vaandrager in view of Eidelberg to include the robot and monitoring chamber of Kuehl to provide a more effective honey harvesting apparatus.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaandrager (US Pub. 2018/0235190 A1) in view of Eidelberg (US Pub. 2017/0334075 A1), and further in view of Humal (US Pub. 2015/0049919 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Vaandrager as modified by Eidelberg discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Humal, wherein said monitoring and operating chamber is adapted to act as a disinfecting or treatment chamber (Pg. 4, [0086], lines 16-19: “If a separated mite has been detected during varroa mite detection procedure, the gate 315 is opened, and after the bee has left, the gas discharge lamps 329 and 330 are activated, to kill the mite with the heat. When the observation chamber is empty, gate 314 is opened and the procedure begins again with next bee”) detected with a camera (Abstract, lines 1-3: “A device for diagnosis and control of honeybee varroatosis (Varroa mite infection) comprises one or several cameras (310), connected to image processor (311)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic beehive of Vaandrager in view of Eidelberg to comprise the disinfection chamber of Humal to prevent common pests from infecting the hive.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humal (US Pub. 2015/0049919 A1) in view of Eidelberg (US Pub. 2017/0334075 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Humal discloses a method comprising selectively, by a robot, opening or closing a portion of an opening enabling bees to exit and enter a hive chamber (Pg. 2-3, [0046], lines 1-4: “In the second alternative of the device there are one or more observation chambers in the field-of-view of the cameras, supplied with controllable gates, through which bees can enter and exit the chambers”), the portion is strictly contained in the opening (The portion is referring to some indeterminate percentage of area of the opening. Therefore, the portion is physically incapable of being removed from the opening because it describes a fraction of the surface area of the opening).
However, Humal fails to disclose as taught by Eidelberg, a cartesian robot adapted to selectively open or close a portion of the opening (Abstract: “An end of arm tool subassembly includes three identical linear drive mechanisms connected directly together to provide three directions of movement. Each linear drive mechanism includes a base defined by a longitudinal axis and a slide movably coupled to the base. The base has at least one mounting surface disposed parallel to the longitudinal axis and an end mounting surface disposed perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. The slide traverses in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis and has a slide mounting surface thereon. One of the identical linear drive mechanisms is directly attached to the end mounting surface of the base of another linear drive mechanism to provide two of the three directions of movement”), the portion is strictly contained in the opening (The portion is referring to some indeterminate percentage of area of the opening. Therefore, the portion is physically incapable of being removed from the opening because it describes a fraction of the surface area of the opening).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manual sliding gate of Humal to include the cartesian robot actuator of Eidelberg to allow for the automatic closing and opening of the beehive entrance to reduce the need for manual intervention.
Regarding claim 12, Humal in view of Eidelberg discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Humal, selectively opening or closing at least some of a plurality of portions of the opening (The portion is referring to some indeterminate percentage of area of the opening. Therefore, the portion is physically incapable of being removed from the opening because it describes a fraction of the surface area of the opening).
Regarding claim 13, Humal in view of Eidelberg discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Humal, wherein the opening is an adjustable opening and wherein the method comprises controlling the size of the adjustable opening by enlarging or diminishing the adjustable opening (See id).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humal (US Pub. 2015/0049919 A1) in view of Eidelberg (US Pub. 2017/0334075 A1), and further in view of Heui (KR Pub. 20120060253A).
Regarding claim 14, Humal as modified by Eidelberg discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Heui, wherein the bee frames are releasably mounted in the hive chamber and wherein the method includes moving frames within the hive chamber (Fig. 8, collection box 610 has a plurality of frames therein which are moved by Fig. 8, bee separating lift 200).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic beehive of Humal in view of Eidelberg to include the releasably mounted frames and actuator of Heui to allow for automatic honey harvesting.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humal (US Pub. 2015/0049919 A1) in view of Eidelberg (US Pub. 2017/0334075 A1), and further in view of Symes (US Pub. 2020/0267945 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Humal as modified by Eidelberg discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Symes, based on data obtained from at least one sensor, determining whether a frame is at least one of: ready to be harvested, and infected, includes at least one of: egg, larvae, sealed larva, queen larva, drone larva, pollen, honey and sealed honey (Pg. 2, [0023], lines 1-9 “The remote data analysis computing device 124 is configured to monitor the data collected by and received from the sensors 104 to determine whether a condition exists such that an action should be taken (e.g., harvesting the produced honey from one or more of the beehives 102, attaching one or more supers to one or more of the beehives 102, moving/placing/ repairing/replacing one or more of the beehives 102, adjusting a feeding schedule, etc.)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic beehive of Humal in view of Eidelberg to include the controller and sensor of Symes to alert the user when the honeycombs are ready for harvesting.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humal (US Pub. 2015/0049919 A1) in view of Eidelberg (US Pub. 2017/0334075 A1), and further in view of Kuehl (US Pub. 4,520,519).
Regarding claim 16, Humal as modified by Eidelberg discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Kuehl, similarly drawn to a beekeeping apparatus, inserting a frame into a monitoring and operating chamber, and extracting the frame from the monitoring chamber (Col. 1, lines 31-47: “The apparatus comprises a vertically movable hoist adapted to support a plurality of supers one upon the other. A super pushoff arm assembly is positioned laterally of the hoist and is off arm assembly is positioned laterally of the hoist and is adapted to push the uppermost super from the stack laterally therefrom into a first super holding area. A vertically movable lift assembly is positioned below the first super holding area and is adapted to push the frames upwardly from the super into a second super holding area. A conveyor conveys the removed frames to a third super holding area at which a scraper assembly scrapes the "burr comb" wax from the top and bottom bars of the frames. Another conveyor conveys the scraped frames laterally from the apparatus to an operator station. The operator will remove the scraped frames from the apparatus and will feed the same to an uncapping mechanism”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic beehive of Humal in view of Eidelberg to include the robot and monitoring chamber of Kuehl to provide a more effective honey harvesting apparatus.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaandrager (US Pub. 2018/0235190 A1) in view of Eidelberg (US Pub. 2017/0334075 A1), and further in view of Simoni (US Pat. 4,094,026).
Regarding claim 21, Vaandrager in view of Eidelberg discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Eidelberg, an automatic beehive, wherein:
the cartesian robot is adapted to selectively open or close the portion of the opening by pushing or pulling at least one bar coupled to at least one door configured to open or close at least one segment of the opening (Abstract: “An end of arm tool subassembly includes three identical linear drive mechanisms connected directly together to provide three directions of movement. Each linear drive mechanism includes a base defined by a longitudinal axis and a slide movably coupled to the base. The base has at least one mounting surface disposed parallel to the longitudinal axis and an end mounting surface disposed perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. The slide traverses in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis and has a slide mounting surface thereon. One of the identical linear drive mechanisms is directly attached to the end mounting surface of the base of another linear drive mechanism to provide two of the three directions of movement”).
However, Vaandrager fails to disclose as taught by Simoni, at least one bar coupled to at least one door configured to open or close at least one segment of the opening (Col. 3, line 62 – col. 4, line 5: “A knife gate 32 is slidably mounted between brood chamber 12 and super 14 along a slot 34 through the passageway 28. The knife gate 32 may be a sheet of metal with one or more handles 36 on the sides so that the gate 32 can be gripped and slid conveniently along the track 34. As a further convenience, at least one handle 36 can be removed, as shown in FIG. 2, so that the gate 32 can be withdrawn from between brood chamber 12 and super 14 for cleaning or when no gate is needed. A knife gate of this design is preferred since bees are less likely to block it with polypropolis to render it nonfunctional”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manual sliding gate of Vaandrager to include a bar of Simoni to allow for improved ease of opening the gate.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaandrager (US Pub. 2018/0235190 A1) in view of Eidelberg (US Pub. 2017/0334075 A1), and Symes (US Pub. 2020/0267945 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Vaandrager discloses an automatic beehive, comprising:
a hive chamber (Abstract, lines 1-2: “A system ventilation and entrance adjustment for a beehive is provided”) including an opening enabling bees to exit and enter the hive chamber (Abstract, lines 2-11: “The system includes: a first panel comprising a first cutout and an entrance adjustment portion flanking the first cutout; and a second panel disposed rearward of the first panel and comprising a second cutout. The first panel is slidable relative to the second panel. In a closed configuration the entrance adjustment portion blocks the second cutout to prevent bees from passing through, and in an open configuration the entrance adjustment portion either does not block, or only partially blocks, the second cutout to allow bees to pass through”);
Vaandrager fails to disclose as taught by Symes, a controller adapted to determine conditions of bees in the beehive based on data received from a plurality of sensors included in the automatic beehive (Pg. 2, [0023], lines 1-9 “The remote data analysis computing device 124 is configured to monitor the data collected by and received from the sensors 104 to determine whether a condition exists such that an action should be taken (e.g., harvesting the produced honey from one or more of the beehives 102, attaching one or more supers to one or more of the beehives 102, moving/placing/ repairing/replacing one or more of the beehives 102, adjusting a feeding schedule, etc.)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic beehive of Vaandrager to include the controller and sensor of Symes to alert the user when the honeycombs are ready for harvesting.
However, Vaandrager fails to disclose as taught by Eidelberg, a controller (Pg. 1, [0004]: “In order to reduce down time, as result of tool changes, manufacturers are continuously searching for intelligent tools, which may be reconfigured upon controller command in a very short time and, therefore, quickly handle a need for a product change. Such a tool is sometimes referred to as an Intelligent End of Arm Tool (iEOAT)”) adapted to control a cartesian robot adapted to selectively open or close a portion of the opening (Abstract: “An end of arm tool subassembly includes three identical linear drive mechanisms connected directly together to provide three directions of movement. Each linear drive mechanism includes a base defined by a longitudinal axis and a slide movably coupled to the base. The base has at least one mounting surface disposed parallel to the longitudinal axis and an end mounting surface disposed perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. The slide traverses in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis and has a slide mounting surface thereon. One of the identical linear drive mechanisms is directly attached to the end mounting surface of the base of another linear drive mechanism to provide two of the three directions of movement”), the portion is strictly contained in the opening (The portion is referring to some indeterminate percentage of area of the opening. Therefore, the portion is physically incapable of being removed from the opening because it describes a fraction of the surface area of the opening).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manual sliding gate of Vaandrager to include the cartesian robot actuator of Eidelberg to allow for the automatic closing and opening of the beehive entrance to reduce the need for manual intervention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7-8 and 17-18 is/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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 Michener can be reached on 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights