Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 01, 2026
Application No. 19/051,514

AUTOMATIC SYSTEM FOR STORING AND HANDLING GROUPS OF ARTICLES TO BE PROCESSED

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Feb 12, 2025
Priority
Feb 12, 2024 — IT 102024000002863
Examiner
MCCLAIN, GERALD
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Adige-Sys S P A
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
595 granted / 801 resolved
+14.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
831
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
38.4%
-1.6% vs TC avg
§102
33.6%
-6.4% vs TC avg
§112
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 801 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Italy on 12 February 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the ITALY 102024000002863 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of vertically-stacked storage stations for storing said trays and the station for loading/unloading the groups of articles to be processed and already processed must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections The claims are objected to because they do not conform with 37 CFR 1.75 (i). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the “means of displacement for the relative lifting of the movable frame with respect to the elevator from said rest position to said operating position” and “displacement means” are not consistently claimed which renders the limitations unclear. It is suggested that the means of displacement should be displacement means. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: device for handling the trays and below with an unloader (Claims 1-14). Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. In Claims 1-14, means of displacement for the relative lifting of the movable frame with respect to the elevator from said rest position to said operating position or displacement means is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. Claims 1-14 are 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. In Claim 1, it is unclear if the phrase, “preferably a needle unloader,” is required to be found in the prior art under a prior art rejection since the phrase is not positively recited. The phrase is construed not to be required in the prior art. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe (US 2012/0306626). Claim 1: a plurality of trays carrying said articles (U have articles; para. [0087]) and provided with parallel and spaced apart bars defining a support surface (bars of 11(S)), a tower frame provided with uprights and horizontal supports suitable for defining a plurality of vertically-stacked storage stations for storing said trays (Fig. 1-2, A/etc.), and an elevator (K) moving vertically between said storage stations and an operational level wherein is located a station for loading/unloading the groups of articles to be processed and already processed (Fig. 1-2), said elevator (5) being equipped above with a device for handling the trays and below with an unloader, preferably a needle unloader, for handling the processed articles (R), wherein the elevator is provided with a frame (8) movable vertically relative thereto and arranged in an intermediate position between said unloader and said device for handling the trays (via R), said movable frame carrying a plurality of vertical tips (P) sized to fit between said bars of the trays moving vertically between a rest position in which said tips are below the bars and an operating position in which the tips protrude superiorly to the bars (Fig. 7-9), and wherein the system includes means of displacement for the relative lifting of the movable frame with respect to the elevator from said rest position to said operating position when the elevator at the end of its descent reaches said operational level of the loading/unloading station (9/etc.; para. [0100]-[0101]); Claim 9: wherein the elevator is centrally mounted on two columns (Fig. 1-2; at least two columns). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-8 and 10-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the following subject matter of Claims 2 and 7 is not disclosed alone or in combination with other prior art. Claim 2: wherein the elevator comprises two sidewalls carrying the unloader, the device for handling the trays and the movable frame, said movable frame comprising two crossbars arranged perpendicularly to said sidewalls; Claims 3-6 and 10-14 depend on Claim 2. Claim 7: wherein the displacement means for the relative lifting of the movable frame with respect to the elevator comprise fixed elements arranged to make contact with the movable frame before the elevator reaches the end of its descent. Claim 8 depends on Claim 7 Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9555981 discloses vertical tips 81. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)). 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 (571) 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. /Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 12, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12728540
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING A SUBSTRATE IN CLEANING MODULES
2y 12m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12729073
PROBE CARD GRIPPER AND TRANSFER DEVICE COMPRISING SAME
2y 8m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12728544
HANDLING SYSTEM COMPRISING TUBE LIFTER AND MANIPULATOR WITH GEARBOX
2y 1m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12727437
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR HANDLING SEMICONDUCTOR PART CARRIERS
1y 9m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12715691
STOCKER AND STOCKER SYSTEM
2y 7m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+14.5%)
2y 5m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 801 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month