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, see Page 6, Section II, filed 8/21/2026, with respect to the abstract of the disclosure have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification of 5/21/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, Section III, filed 8/21/2026, with respect to claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1-13 of 5/21/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, Section IV, filed 8/21/2026, with respect to claims 1-13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of 5/21/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, Section V, filed 8/21/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 5-8, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Vokurka EP 0073185 A1.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, Section VI, filed 8/21/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-4 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Loedige, Bruder, and Iwasaki, taken alone or in combination fail to disclose, teach, or otherwise suggest a robotized collection device. The examiner disagrees. Vokurka teaches an anthropomorphic robot hanging from a crosspiece and provided with one or more arms. A combination of Loedige and Vokurka discloses a robotized collection device, wherein the robotized collection device includes an anthropomorphic robot hanging from a crosspiece and provided with one or more arms configured to pick up a product.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 is dependent on now cancelled claim 2. 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.
Claim 13 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said portal support structure" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 1, 3-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loedige DE 19518618 A1 in view of Vokurka EP 0073185 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Loedige discloses an apparatus (Loedige FIG. 1) for a collection of products, from a work machine provided with a transfer zone for a transfer of said products from a work plane to a zone outside said work machine (Loedige Para [0003]), wherein the apparatus comprises at least one device for collecting said products (Loedige – 1, FIG. 1) which is hanging from a portal type support structure (Loedige – 14, FIG. 1) and is provided with one or more arms (Loedige – 2; FIG 1) configured to pick up said products directly from said transfer zone and transfer to a forklift or other transport or movement mean (Loedige Abstract, Lines 1-4; See Loedige FIG 1 below). Loedige fails to disclose wherein said portal support structure comprises at least two columns and a crosspiece from which said device for collecting is hung, wherein said device for collecting is robotized and connected to a control unit, and wherein said device for collecting comprises an anthropomorphic robot hanging from the crosspiece and provided with said one or more arms.
PNG
media_image1.png
351
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Loedige FIG. 1
Vokurka teaches a machine, wherein said portal support structure comprises at least two columns (Vokurka – 9; FIG. 1) and a crosspiece (Vokurka – 1; FIG. 1) from which a device is hung, wherein said device is robotized and connected to a control unit, and wherein said device for collecting comprises an anthropomorphic robot (Vokurka Description Para [0009]) hanging from the crosspiece (Vokurka – 1)(Vokurka Description Para [0008]) and provided with said one or more arms (Vokurka – 2)(Vokurka Description Para [0011]: it is sufficient to program the control unit for the movements of the welding machine once and then to control both articulated arm robots 2 or, in the case of several articulated arm robots arranged on beam 1, more than 2 or all articulated arm robots at the same time).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for the collection of a product disclosed by Loedige, and modify the device for collecting to include an anthropomorphic robot to hang from a portal type support structure comprising at least two columns and a crosspiece, as taught by Vokurka, for the purpose of having freedom of movement of articulated arm robots to provide increased possible uses of the articulated arm robots (See Vokurka Description Para [0006]), and to further increase the range of motion of the articulated arm robots (See Vokurka Description Para [0010]).
Regarding claim 3, Loedige in view of Vokurka discloses the apparatus (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein said device for collecting comprises a support (Loedige – 11; FIG. 1) mobile along a substantially vertical guide (Loedige – 10; FIG. 1) connected to said crosspiece (Loedige – 14, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Loedige in view of Vokurka discloses the apparatus (See claim 3 rejection above), wherein said guide (Loedige – 10) is mobile in a substantially horizontal direction along said crosspiece (Loedige – 14).
Regarding claim 5, Loedige in view of Vokurka discloses the apparatus (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein said device for collecting comprises a plurality of sections (Loedige – 3, 6, FIG. 1) articulated by means of rotation pins (Loedige – 7, 9, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Loedige in view Vokurka discloses the apparatus (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein said support structure comprises at least a first lateral zone in which said device for collecting can be taken offline, that is, into a non- operating condition (See Loedige FIG. 1 illustrated above).
Regarding claim 7, Loedige in view of Vokurka discloses the apparatus (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein said support structure comprises at least a second lateral zone from which it is possible to unload said products directly onto said or other transport or transfer mean (See Loedige FIG. 1 illustrated above).
Regarding claim 8, Loedige in view of Vokurka disclose the apparatus (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein said support structure comprises one or more elements (Loedige – 13, FIG. 1) for cantilevered support of one or more devices for collecting (Loedige Para [0013]: The trolley 13 forms a kind of cross support for the articulated beam 5 with a portal 14, so that the trolley 13 can be moved along the portal 14).
Regarding claim 10, Loedige in view of Vokurka discloses the apparatus (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein said support structure has a variable height (Vokurka Description Page 2, Lines 12-13: To further increase the range of motion, the beam 1 is attached to one or both of its ends on columns 9 in the direction of the double arrow 10, i.e. guided up; FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Loedige in view of Vokurka discloses the apparatus (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein said support structure comprises an overhead rail conveyor (Vokurka – 1) on which one or more collection devices are positioned (Vokurka Description Para [0010]), which are configured to collect said products from a first loading zone located in proximity to said transfer zone, unload them in an unloading zone located in proximity to said forklift, or other transport or movement mean, and then return toward said transfer zone (Loedige Description Para [0003]: The invention is therefore based on the objective of creating a mechanical handling device of the generic type that is maneuverable and allows smaller distances between the drop-off points of the goods to be handled within its operating range.; See Loedige FIG. 1 above).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loedige in view of Vokurka as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Iwasaki et al. US 8,763,792 B2. US 8,763,792 B2 hereinafter to be referred to as the Iwasaki patent.
Loedige in view of Vokurka disclose the invention (See claim 11 rejection above), however, Loedige in view of Vokurka fails to disclose wherein said overhead rail conveyor is annular and substantially defined by at least one pair of crosspieces connected by means of curved segments. Iwasaki teaches an overhead rail conveyor (Iwasaki – 4; FIG. 20) is annular (Iwasaki Col. 14, Line 18: but the travel guide 4 preferably has a rectangular ring shape; FIG. 20), and substantially defined by at least one pair of crosspieces (Iwasaki – 4A) connected by means of curved segments (Iwasaki Col. 6, Lines 59-60: the travel guide 4 referred to includes a rectilinear section 4A and a curved section 4B.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Loedige in view of Vokurka to include an annular overhead rail conveyor defined by crosspieces connected by means of curved segments, as taught by Iwasaki, to allow for multiple transfer sections to be setup along the travel path (See Iwasaki Col. 6, Lines 60-67: One of the transfer tables, for example, the transfer table 71 is installed adjacent the curved section 4B. This transfer table 71 preferably serves the purpose of delivering and receiving a workpiece or work W, which may be either a raw material or a product, relative to the outside of the conveyance system, and through this transfer table 71, the delivering or discharging of the work W is carried out by way of the traveling member 3.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruder DE 2719727 A1 in view of Vokurka. DE 2719727 A1 is a published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Bruder patent.
Regarding claim 13, Bruder discloses a method to collect metal products from a work machine which is provided with a transfer zone for a transfer of said metal products from a work plane to a zone outside said work machine, the method comprising direct collection of said metal products (Bruder Para [0004]) from said transfer zone by means of one or more arms provided in at least one device for collecting (See FIG. 3 below)(Bruder – 19, FIG. 1) hanging from a support structure (Bruder – 6,7; FIG. 1) of an apparatus to collect and transfer said metal products from said device for collecting to a forklift or other transport or movement mean (Bruder Para [0008]; Para [0036]; See Bruder FIG. 3 below). Bruder fails to disclose wherein said portal support structure comprises at least two columns and a crosspiece from which said device for collecting is hung, wherein said device for collecting is robotized and connected to a control unit, and wherein said device for collecting comprises an anthropomorphic robot hanging from the crosspiece and provided with said one or more arms.
PNG
media_image2.png
538
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 3
Vokurka teaches a machine, wherein said portal support structure comprises at least two columns (Vokurka – 9; FIG. 1) and a crosspiece (Vokurka – 1; FIG. 1) from which a device is hung, wherein said device is robotized and connected to a control unit, and wherein said device for collecting comprises an anthropomorphic robot (Vokurka Description Para [0009]) hanging from the crosspiece (Vokurka – 1)(Vokurka Description Para [0008]) and provided with said one or more arms (Vokurka – 2)(Vokurka Description Para [0011]: it is sufficient to program the control unit for the movements of the welding machine once and then to control both articulated arm robots 2 or, in the case of several articulated arm robots arranged on beam 1, more than 2 or all articulated arm robots at the same time).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to collect metal products as disclosed by Bruder, and modify the device for collecting to include an anthropomorphic robot to hang from a portal type support structure comprising at least two columns and a crosspiece, as taught by Vokurka, for the purpose of increasing the freedom of movement of an articulated arm robots in order to increase possible uses of the articulated arm robots (See Vokurka Description Para [0006]), and further increase the range of motion of the articulated arm robots (See Vokurka Description Para [0010]).
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 DARLINGTON N IBEKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-2474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:00pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
D.N.I.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights