DETAILED ACTION1
ELECTION/RESTRICTION
Claims 14-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected groups and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 9, 2026.
The traversal between groups I and II is on the ground(s) that claim 1 has been amended to require features from the method claims. This argument lacks merit for at least two reasons. First, a device configured to perform a step can still be anticipated by a structure that is capable of, but never performs, a method step. Thus, the claims are still materially different. Second, applicant did not overcome the prima facie case that search would be required in distinct areas or address the concern of divergent prosecution. Should claim 1 be found allowable, applicant is free to amend the method claims to include every feature of the allowable claims and have them rejoined. The restriction requirement between Group I and II is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claims 11-13 are objected to because of an informality. Claim 11 recites a rigid frame comprises a plurality of cross-beams. Grammatically, this should read ‘comprising.’ Claims 12-13 are objected to based on their dependence. Appropriate correction is required.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 & 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 4,410,503 to Zmeu.
Claim 1 recites a handling system for imparting a desired longitudinal conformation into a longitudinal component. Zmeu relates to such a system. See Zmeu [0006] and Fig. 1. Figure 1 of Zmeu shows the handling system (100) has a rigid frame (120) and a plurality of handling headers (130) movably connected to the rigid frame. See Zmeu [0024]. Zmeu further teaches that the headers (130) are each configured to grip…[and] lift [a] longitudinal component (304). See Zmeu Fig. 19. As a matter of claim construction, the term configured to, is interpreted to mean the prior art must be capable of the listed intended uses without further modification. Finally, Zmeu teaches that the headers are also configured to cooperatively move, relative to each other, to impart the desired longitudinal conformation into the longitudinal component. See Zmeu [0027].
Claim 2 recites that the rigid frame comprises a plurality of cross-beams. Although Zmeu refers to the strongback (120) as a single element, the figures show two distinct end-caps, side by side. See e.g. Zmeu Fig. 1. Thus, one of ordinary skill would infer the strongback is actually two adjacent cross-beams. Zmeu teaches that the headers are configured to move along this strongback. See Zmeu [0024]. Claim 3 recites that each handling header is configured to maintain an axis of rotation at a centerline of a base of the longitudinal component. Figure 3 of Zmeu shows that each header (130) rotates around load cell (160) and center plate (136). See Zmeu [0025]-[0028]. These elements align longitudinally with the grippers (172). As such, the headers (130) can have an axis of rotation (z) at a centerline of a base of the longitudinal component when picked up by the grippers. Regarding claim 6, Zmeu teaches the rigid frame (120) is attached to a robotic arm (110) that allow[s] movement of the rigid frame across a manufacturing floor. See Zmeu Fig. 1. Claim 7 recites the system includes a contact sensor or a proximity sensor for determin[ing] a distance of the plurality of handling headers from the longitudinal component. Zmeu teaches, among other sensor systems, that the control system can use feedback from the shock absorber (184) of the movable jaw (174) to determine clamping pressure on the workpiece. As such, the system is using the jaw and shock absorber as a de-facto contact sensor because contact is determined when pressure exceeds zero. Thus, Zmeu teaches a contact sensor that is capable of the intended use. Regarding claim 8, Zmeu teaches the system includes a profilometer (204)…configured to provide indexing data for the plurality of handling headers relative to the longitudinal component. See Zmeu [0041]-[0043].
Claim 9 recites a gantry connection configured to attach the handling system to a gantry. Claim 9 does not recite, or require, that the system be attached to a gantry. It merely requires a connection device that would be capable of connecting the system to a gantry. Zmeu shows a connection joint between the strongback and the robotic arm. This joint is capable of also being connected to an arm handing from a gantry. As such, it anticipates the limitation. This joint also obviously teaches a connector configured to attach the handling system to an industrial robot arm as recited in claim 10.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 103
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious2 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4,410,503 to Zmeu in view of EP 4,324,753 to Ahn.
Regarding claim 4 figure 3 of Zmeu shows that each handling header (13) [has] a base (132, 134) configured to traverse a cross-beam (120)…a body (160) movably connected to the base by a lift actuator (138). Claim 4 also recites a curved rail mounted on the body; and a gripper movably connected to the curved rail. Zmeu teaches a flat bar (162) mounted to both the body (160) and to grippers (170). But It would have been obvious to modify Zmeu to replace the flat bar with a curved rail in view of Ahn. Ahn also relates to a stringer lifting and shaping mechanism. See Ahn [0002]-[0003] and Fig. 11. Ahn is highly similar to Zmeu. Both have robotic arms that connect to a rigid frame that in turn has several stringer holding elements attached. Figures 9 and 11 of Ahn and figure 3 of Zmau also show that the holding elements both have multi-axis actuators (138 v. 230). As such, the two references are highly analogous art. Ahm shows the gripping elements (204) connected via a curved rail (220) rather than a flat one. It would have been obvious to substitute the curved rail (220) of Ahn for the flat rail (162) of Zmeu because it is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
Claim 5 recites a carriage movably connected to the curved rail, wherein the gripper is connected to the carriage by a dimensional adjustment actuator. In Zmeu the gripping elements (170) consist of a first jaw (172) and a jaw actuator (176) that moves the other jaw (174). The jaw actuator may be considered a carriage in the sense that it moves the second jaw because a carriage can be interpreted to mean a device that conveys another thing. The jaw actuator (176) carriage is connected to the flat rail (162) in Zmeu and therefore would be connected to the curved rail after the modification with Ahn.
Claim 11 recites the same combination of features present in claims 1-4. These features are all rejected for the same reasons. Claim 12 recites the same features as claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 13 is 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. Claim 13 recites driving the carriage along a curved rail, using a twist actuator. Zmeu uses a gripping system that cannot be modified to use a curved rail. As such, claim 13 is allowable.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”
Prosecution Insights