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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 3, line 30, “The or each variable-length element” should read “The variable-length element(s)”.
On page 3, line 35, “The or each variable-length element” should read “The variable-length element(s)”.
On page 4, line 27, “The or each variable-length element” should read “The variable-length element(s)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 52 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 52, lines 2 and 3, “the or each rigging element” should read “the rigging element(s)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 31, 33, 37, 38, 42, 43, 44, 46, 49, 51, 52, 55 and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joop et al (NL 2017468).
Regarding claim 31, Joop et al teaches a combination of an elongate structure and a lifting arrangement for upending the structure comprises:
rigging of elongate elements (30.1, 30.2, 30.3) that are connected to the structure (50) at respective connection axes spaced longitudinally along the structure (50), at least one of those elements (30.1, 30.2) extending to a first connection axis and at least one other of those elements (30.3) extending to a second connection axis and being of variable length, wherein the structure (50) has a centre of gravity (50C) that lies in a vertical plane disposed between the first and second connection axes (Page 9, paragraph 4; Page 10, paragraphs 10, 11; Fig. 11, elements 30.1, 30.2, 30.3, 51, 52; annotated figure);
and a frame (17) suspended from a crane (10), via a hoisting system (33.1, 33.2, 33.3) of the crane (10), the frame (17) supporting at least one winch that acts on the at least one variable-length element (30.3) of the rigging (Page 9, paragraphs 2, 4; Fig. 4, elements 17, 33.1, 33.2, 33.3);
wherein the at least one variable-length element (30.3) of the rigging extends laterally from the winch and over a sheave that defines a suspension point of the frame (17) that is offset laterally from said vertical plane, and said vertical plane intersects the winch (Page 9, paragraphs 4, 12; Page 10, paragraph 1; Fig. 6B, elements 30.3, 31.3). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 33, Joop et al teaches the first connection axis defines a pivot axis about which the structure (50) is upended (Page 11, paragraph 1; Fig. 12, elements 50A; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
645
497
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 37, Joop et al teaches the at least one element (30.1) extending to the first connection axis is attached at an opposite end (17B) to the frame (17) (Fig. 5, elements 17, 17B, 30.1).
Regarding claim 38, Joop et al teaches the at least one element (30.1, 30.2) extending to the first connection axis is attached at an opposite end to the crane (10) (annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
559
311
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 42, Joop et al teaches the structure (50) is suspended by the crane (10) over water (Page 11, paragraph 2; Fig. 13, element 50; Fig. 14, elements 10, 50; annotated figure).
PNG
media_image4.png
797
600
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 43, Joop et al teaches a method of upending an elongate structure (50) to an upright orientation, the method comprising:
suspending the structure (50) from a crane (10) via elongate rigging elements (30.1, 30.2, 30.3) that are attached to the structure (50) respectively at first and second connection axes spaced longitudinally along the structure (50), at least one of the rigging elements (30.1, 30.2, 30.3) extending from a winch over a sheave that defines a suspension point offset laterally relative to a vertical plane containing the centre of gravity (50C) of the structure (50) (Page 10, paragraphs 9-11; Fig. 11); and
by paying out said at least one of the rigging elements (30.1, 30.2, 30.3) from the winch that is also suspended from the crane (10) and that is intersected by said vertical plane, lowering the second connection axis relative to the first connection axis, hence pivoting the structure (50) around the first connection axis to the upright orientation (Page 11, paragraph 1; Fig. 12, elements 30.1, 30.2, 30.3, 50A, 50B; Fig. 13, elements 30.1, 30.2, 30.3, 50).
Regarding claim 44, Joop et al teaches holding the first connection axis at a substantially fixed height relative to the crane (10) (annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image5.png
666
527
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 46, Joop et al teaches suspending the winch from a hoisting system of the crane (10) (Page 9, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 49, Joop et al teaches bearing a majority of the weight of the structure (50) through the first connection axis (Page 11, paragraphs 10-11; Fig. 11, elements 32.1, 32.2, 32.3, 50).
Regarding claim 51, Joop et al teaches while upending the structure (50), transferring the weight of the structure (50) from one or more rigging elements (30.3) attached at the second connection axis to one or more rigging elements (30.1, 30.2) attached at the first connection axis (Page 11, paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding claim 52, Joop et al teaches after completing said transfer of weight, detaching the or each rigging element (30.3) from the structure (50) at the second connection axis while suspending the weight of the structure (50) from the or each rigging element (30.1, 30.2) attached at the first connection axis (Page 11, paragraph 2; Fig. 13, elements 30.1, 30.2, 50).
Regarding claim 55, Joop et al teaches the suspension point remains in fixed relation to the winch while upending the structure (Page 9, paragraph 10; annotated figures). Additional details are provided in the figures below.
PNG
media_image6.png
645
402
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
602
301
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 56, Joop et al teaches when the structure (50) is upright, one or more rigging elements (30.1, 30.2) extend to the first connection axis substantially in alignment with the centre of gravity (50C) of the structure (50) (Fig. 13, elements 30.1, 30.2; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image8.png
602
301
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 57 and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nilles (U.S. Patent No. 9721688).
Regarding claim 57, Nilles teaches an upending device, comprising:
a frame (52) having at least two lifting points for suspending the frame (52) from a hook (60) of a crane via downwardly diverging spreader rigging such that a common vertical plane intersects the hook (60) and the frame (52), wherein the frame (52) comprises (Column 9, lines 45-48, 52-55; Fig. 8, elements 52, 60; annotated figure):
a winch (54) for paying out a rigging element (58), wherein said vertical plane intersects the winch (52) (Column 9, lines 47-48, 51-52; Fig. 8, elements 52, 54, 58; annotated figure); and
a suspension point for supporting the rigging element (58) at a position offset laterally from said vertical plane (Column 9, lines 51-52; Fig. 8, elements 52, 58; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image9.png
719
425
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 59, Nilles et al teaches a crane supporting the upending device (Column 2, lines 61-67; Column 3, lines 1-4).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 32, 34, 36, 39, 40, 45, 47 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joop et al in view of Nilles (US 9721688).
Regarding claim 32, Joop et al fails to teach a hook connection. Nilles teaches an upending device wherein the frame (52) is suspended via a hook (60) of the crane (Column 9, lines 45-48, 52-55; Fig. 7, elements 52, 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Nilles in Joop et al to facilitate the creation of a hook connection that can allows the crane to raise and lower the upending mechanism as taught by Nilles (Column 9, lines 52-57).
Regarding claim 34, Joop et al fails to teach opposed connection points. Nilles teaches an upending device wherein the structure (10’) has a pair of connection points (70) on the first connection axis on mutually opposed sides of the structure (10’), to which respective rigging elements (56) extend (Column 11, lines 53-59; Fig. 7, elements 10’, 56, 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Nilles in Joop et al to facilitate the creation of mutually opposed connection points that can provide a balanced pivot axis as taught by Nilles (Column 11, lines 59-61).
Regarding claim 36, Joop et al fails to teach a rigging element of fixed length. Nilles teaches an upending device wherein the at least one element (56) extending to the first connection axis is of substantially fixed length (Column 10, lines 8-11; Fig. 7, element 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Nilles in Joop et al to facilitate the creation of a rigging element with a fixed length that can keep the shipping container in a horizontal position as taught by Nilles (Column 10, lines 50-53).
Regarding claim 39, Joop et al fails to teach a greater longitudinal distance between the second connection axis and the vertical plane. Nilles teaches an upending device wherein a longitudinal distance along the structure (10’) between the second connection axis and said plane is greater than a longitudinal distance along the structure between the first connection axis and said plane (Fig. 7, elements 70, 72; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Nilles in Joop et al to facilitate the creation of an arrangement that can reduce the winch force needed to initiate rotation of a shipping container as taught by Nilles (Column 11, lines 27-33).
PNG
media_image10.png
704
611
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 40, Nilles further teaches the longitudinal distance between the second connection axis and said plane is greater than the longitudinal distance between the first connection axis and said plane (Fig. 7, elements 70, 72; annotated figure). Nilles does not teach that the distance between the second connection axis and the plane is five times greater than the distance between the first connection axis and the plane. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create such a distance between the vertical plane and the connection axes on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image11.png
732
628
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 45, Joop et al fails to teach a rigging element of fixed length. Nilles teaches a method of using an upending device which includes maintaining a rigging element (56) attached to the first connection axis at a substantially fixed length (Column 10, lines 8-11; Fig. 7, element 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Nilles in Joop et al to facilitate the creation of a rigging element with a fixed length that can keep the shipping container in a horizontal position as taught by Nilles (Column 10, lines 50-53).
Regarding claim 47, Joop et al fails to teach a hook connection. Nilles teaches a method of using an upending device which includes suspending the winch (54) from a hook (60) of the crane (Column 9, lines 45-48, 52-55; Fig. 7, elements 52, 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Nilles in Joop et al to facilitate the creation of a hook connection that can allow the crane to raise and lower the upending mechanism as taught by Nilles (Column 9, lines 52-57).
Regarding claim 48, Joop et al discloses the claimed invention except for a hook. Nilles teaches a method for using an upending device which includes keeping the centre of gravity of the structure (52) on a vertical axis that intersects the hook (60) (Column 9, lines 45-48, 52-55; Fig. 7, elements 52, 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Nilles in Joop et al to facilitate the creation of an arrangement that can keep the rigging lines taut as taught by Nilles (Column 10, lines 50-53).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joop et al in view of Nilles in further view of Botwright (EP 2364949).
Regarding claim 35, Joop et al in view of Nilles fails to teach trunnions. Botwright teaches an upending device wherein the connection points are trunnions (106, 108) that protrude from the structure (24) on the first connection axis (Page 7, paragraph 2; Fig. 5, elements 24, 106, 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Botwright in combination with Joop et al and Nilles to facilitate the creation of trunnions that can define the axis of rotation as taught by Botwright (Page 7, paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 41, 50, 53 and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joop et al (NL 2017468).
Regarding claim 41, Joop et al teaches a suspension point that is laterally offset from the vertical plane (Page 9, paragraphs 4, 10; Fig. 6B, elements 30.3, 31.3). Joop et al does not teach a lateral offset that is equal to at least half the diameter of the structure. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create such an offset between the vertical plane and the suspension point on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 50, Joop et al teaches bearing the majority of the weight of the structure (50) from the first connection axis. Joop et al does not teach the amount of weight being supported by the second connection axis. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a second connection axis that can support less than 20% of the weight of the structure on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 53, Joop et al teaches the second connection axis being offset relative to the longitudinal axis of the structure (50) (annotated figure). Joop et al does not teach that the offset is a radial offset. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a second connection axis with a radial offset on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image12.png
569
498
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 54, Joop et al teaches a lateral offset of the suspension point and a lateral offset of the second connection axis (Page 9, paragraphs 4, 10; Fig. 6B, elements 30.3, 31.3; annotated figure). Joop et al does not teach the relationship between these offsets. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a suspension point with a lateral offset that is at least as great as the radial offset of the second connection axis on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image12.png
569
498
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilles in view of Joop et al (NL 2017468).
Regarding claim 58, Nilles fails to teach a sheave. Joop et al teaches the suspension point is defined by a sheave spaced laterally from the winch (Page 9, paragraph 10; Fig. 6B, elements 33.1, 30.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teaching of Joop et al in Nilles to facilitate the creation of a sheave that can manipulate the cable in order to raise and lower the hoisting block as taught by Joop et al (Page 9, paragraphs 5, 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:00am to 4:30pm.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights