DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
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 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.
Claims 1-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernyak (US Publication 2011/0247993 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chernyak discloses:
A gap-jumping overhead crane (see below), the crane comprising:
a hoist (110, see figure 1) mounted on a bridge (108, see figure 1) having opposing ends (see figure 1) and extending between the two parallel runways (106, see figure 1);
wherein the bridge is slidably mountable (see paragraph 0027) to the two parallel runways at each of the opposing ends of the bridge by an end truck (500, see figures 5A-5B);
wherein each end truck (500) has two ends (see figures 5A-5B) and at least two load wheels (502, see figures 5A-5B) attached to the end truck and spaced apart from each other between the two ends of the end truck (see figures 5A-5B); and
wherein at least two of the load wheels are separated by a distance greater (see figures 5A-5B) than the size of the gap (as the distance between load wheels 502 functional are greater than a gap formed on the runways, such as a gap formed on the runways due to wear on the runways as a result of extended use of the crane).
Chernyak does not disclose wherein each end truck has at least three load wheels.
Chernyak teaches that the load wheels (502) carry the force of the load (see paragraph 0027). Further, Chernyak teaches that the load wheels are spaced apart from each other between the two ends of the end truck (see figures 5A-5B).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Chernyak by providing at least four more additional load wheels (with two of the additional load wheels at each end of the end trucks), to provide additional carrying of the force of the load as taught by Chernyak, to reduce crane operation disruption as additional load wheels would allow the crane to keep operating even if one of the load wheels breaks, and/or as the duplication of the number of load wheels has the expected result of providing additional carrying of the force of the load (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
With the modification above, each end truck has at least three load wheels.
Regarding claim 2, Chernyak further shows wherein each end truck has at least two guide wheels (504, see figures 5A-5B) attached to the end truck (see figures 5A-5B), and wherein at least two of the guide wheels are separated by a distance greater than the size of the gap (as the distance between guide wheels 504 functional are greater than a gap formed on the runways, such as a gap formed on the runways due to wear on the runways as a result of extended use of the crane).
Chernyak does not disclose at least three guide wheels.
Chernyak teaches that the guide wheels (504) provide directional stability while moving along the runways (see paragraph 0027).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Chernyak by providing at least two more additional guide wheels (with one of the additional guide wheels at each end of the end trucks), to provide additional directional stability while moving along the runways as taught by Chernyak, and/or as the duplication of the number of guide wheels has the expected result of providing additional direction stability while moving along the runways (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 3, Chernyak further shows wherein the load wheels are oriented to support the weight of the crane on the runways (see figures 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 4, Chernyak further shows wherein the guide wheels are oriented to prevent lateral movement as the crane travels along the runways (see figures 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 5, Chernyak further shows wherein each end truck has a centre of gravity between the ends and at least two of the load wheels between the centre of gravity and each end of the end truck are separated by a distance greater than the size of the gap (see figures 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 6, Chernyak further shows wherein at least two of the guide wheels between the centre of gravity and each end of the end truck are separated by a distance greater than the size of the gap (see figures 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 7, Chernyak further shows wherein each end truck has at least four load wheels (see figures 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 8, Chernyak further shows wherein each end truck has four load wheels positioned in axially aligned pairs (see figures 5A-5B).
Chernyak teaches that the load wheels (502) carry the force of the load (see paragraph 0027).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Chernyak by providing at least four more additional load wheels (with two of the additional load wheels at each end of the end trucks), to provide additional carrying of the force of the load as taught by Chernyak, and/or as the duplication of the number of load wheels has the expected result of providing additional carrying of the force of the load (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 9, Chernyak further shows wherein the bridge (108) has a track (considered the inverted C-channel for wheeled trolley 508, see paragraph 0029) extending along at least a portion of the bridge and the hoist is slidably mounted on the track (see figures 7-8, and paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 16, Chernyak discloses:
A gap-jumping overhead crane (see below), for use with one or more runways (106, see at least figure 1) each having a first and second end (see at least figure 1), the crane comprising:
a hoist (110, see figure 1) mounted on one or more trolleys (108 and 500, see figures 1 and 5A-8) having two ends (see figure 1) and at least two load wheels (502, see figures 5A-5B) attached to the trolley (see figure 8) and spaced apart from each other between the two ends of the trolley (see figures 5A-5B, as wheels 502 are spaced from each other with respect to the front end of the trolley and the rear end of the trolley); and
wherein at least two of the load wheels are separated by a distance (see figures 5A-5B) greater than the size of the gap (as the distance between load wheels 502 functional are greater than a gap formed on the runways, such as a gap formed on the runways due to wear on the runways as a result of extended use of the crane).
Chernyak does not disclose wherein each end truck has at least three load wheels.
Chernyak teaches that the load wheels (502) carry the force of the load (see paragraph 0027). Further, Chernyak teaches that the load wheels are spaced apart from each other between the two ends of the trolley (see figures 5A-5B, as wheels 502 are spaced from each other with respect to the front end of the trolley and the rear end of the trolley).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Chernyak by providing at least four more additional load wheels (with two of the additional load wheels at each end of the trolley), to provide additional carrying of the force of the load as taught by Chernyak, to reduce crane operation disruption as additional load wheels would allow the crane to keep operating even if one of the load wheels breaks, and/or as the duplication of the number of load wheels has the expected result of providing additional carrying of the force of the load (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
With the modification above, each end truck has at least three load wheels.
Regarding claim 17, Chernyak further shows wherein each trolley (500) has at least two guide wheels (504, see figures 5A-5B) attached to the end truck (see figures 5A-5B), and wherein at least two of the guide wheels are separated by a distance greater than the size of the gap (as the distance between guide wheels 504 functional are greater than a gap formed on the runways, such as a gap formed on the runways due to wear on the runways as a result of extended use of the crane).
Chernyak does not disclose at least three guide wheels.
Chernyak teaches that the guide wheels (504) provide directional stability while moving along the runways (see paragraph 0027).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Chernyak by providing at least two more additional guide wheels (with one of the additional guide wheels at each end of the trolley), to provide additional directional stability while moving along the runways as taught by Chernyak, and/or as the duplication of the number of guide wheels has the expected result of providing additional direction stability while moving along the runways (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 18, Chernyak further shows wherein the load wheels are oriented to support the weight of the crane on the runways (see figures 5A-5B) and wherein the guide wheels are oriented to prevent lateral movement as the crane travels along the runways (see figures 5A-5B).
Claims 10-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernyak (US Publication 2011/0247993 A1) as applied to claims 1-9 and 16-18 above, and further in view of Davis (US Publication US 2002/0066390 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Chernyak lacks two or more bridge drives and each of the two or more bridge drives powering a drive wheel.
Davis discloses bridge drive diagnostic system (see figures 1-5) and teaches of providing each bridge (14, 18, and 22, see figure 1) with two bridge drives (76 and 80, see figure 2) and each of the two or more bridge drives powering a drive wheel (one of 36 or 40, see figure 2) to permit travel of the crane along rails (46 and 50, see figure 1, and paragraph 0016).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Chernyak by providing two or more bridge drives (one bridge drive for each end truck) and each of the two or more bridge drives powering a drive wheel (at least one drive wheel for each end truck), to permit travel of the crane along rails as taught by Davis.
With the modification above, one bridge drive is attached to each end of one of the end trucks regarding claim 11, and the drive wheel of one or more of the bridge drives is one or more of the load wheels (as the drive wheel supports the load of at least the bridge, regarding claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Chernyak lacks a bridge drive and a motor powering at least drive wheels.
Davis discloses bridge drive diagnostic system (see figures 1-5) and teaches of providing each bridge (14, 18, and 22, see figure 1) with two bridge drives (76 and 80, see figure 2) and each of the two or more bridge drives powering drive wheels (36 or 40, see figure 2) to permit travel of the crane along rails (46 and 50, see figure 1, and paragraph 0016). Davis further teaches of the desirability to have two drive wheels in engagement with each rail (see paragraph 0017).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Chernyak by connecting a bridge drive to at least two of the load wheels, as there is a desirability in the prior art to have two drive wheels in engagement with each rail as taught by Davis.
With the modification of Chernyak in view of Davis above, one or more of the at least two drive wheels is one or more of the load wheels, regarding claim 14.
Regarding claim 19, Chernyak lacks two or more trolley drives and each of the two or more trolley drives powering a drive wheel.
Davis discloses bridge drive diagnostic system (see figures 1-5) and teaches of providing each trolley (14, 18, and 22, see figure 1) with two trolley drives (76 and 80, see figure 2) and each of the two or more trolley drives powering a drive wheel (one of 36 or 40, see figure 2) to permit travel of the crane along rails (46 and 50, see figure 1, and paragraph 0016).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Chernyak by providing two or more trolley drives (one trolley drive for each trolley) and each of the two or more trolley drives powering a drive wheel (at least one drive wheel for each trolley), to permit travel of the crane along rails as taught by Davis.
Regarding claim 20, Chernyak lacks a trolley drive and a motor powering at least drive wheels.
Davis discloses bridge drive diagnostic system (see figures 1-5) and teaches of providing each trolley (14, 18, and 22, see figure 1) with two trolley drives (76 and 80, see figure 2) and each of the two or more trolley drives powering drive wheels (36 or 40, see figure 2) to permit travel of the crane along rails (46 and 50, see figure 1, and paragraph 0016). Davis further teaches of the desirability to have two drive wheels in engagement with each rail (see paragraph 0017).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Chernyak by connecting a trolley drive to at least two of the load wheels, as there is a desirability in the prior art to have two drive wheels in engagement with each rail as taught by Davis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2025 (see Remarks REM of 12/10/2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue:
“The applicant submits that Chernyak does not disclose each element of claim 1 or 16, at least because Chernyak does not disclose an end truck (or trolley) having "at least three load wheels spaced apart from one another between the two ends of the end truck" (or trolley), as required by claims 1 and 16, as amended.”, see page 2 lines 15-18 of the Remarks.
The Examiner respectfully does not agree because (as discussed in at least the rejections to claim 1 and 16 above) it would have been obvious to increase the number of load wheels to at least three load wheels to provide additional carrying of the force of the load as taught by Chernyak, to reduce crane operation disruption as additional load wheels would allow the crane to keep operating even if one of the load wheels breaks, and/or as the duplication of the number of load wheels has the expected result of providing additional carrying of the force of the load (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Chernyak (see figures 5A-5B) shows that the load wheels (502) are spaced apart from one another between the two ends of the end truck (or trolley).
Applicants argue:
“The configuration of "rollers 502" disclosed in Chernyak would not permit the crane to traverse a gap in the runway. Because the pairs of "rollers 502" are co-axial, there will only be one point on the "end truck 500" supported by the "rollers 502" when the "end truck 500" traverses a gap in the runway. This will cause the "rollers 502" to fall into the gap and cause the crane to get stuck in place, or worse.”, see page 3 lines 1-5.
The Examiner respectfully does not agree for the following reason(s). As modified in either of the rejections to claims 1 and 16 above, the claimed invention of these claims would be obvious to Chernyak. As the claimed structure of these claims are obvious to Chernyak, Chernyak as modified would permit the crane to travers a gap in the runway similar to Applicant’s claimed invention.
Applicants argue:
“In particular, neither Chernyak, nor Davis disclose or suggest and end truck having "at least three load wheels spaced apart from each other between the two ends of the end truck", as required by claims 1 and 16, as amended. Neither of the cranes in Chernyak or Davis would be capable of traversing a gap in the runways, because both are configured with two pairs of co-axial wheels supporting the weight of the crane on the runways.”, see page 3 lines 19-23.
The Examiner respectfully does not agree for the following reason(s). First, Davis is not relied upon for a teaching of amended claims 1 and 16. Second, as already discussed above, the claim subject matter of claims 1 and 16 would be obvious to Chernyak. Third, as the claimed structure of these claims are obvious to Chernyak, Chernyak as modified would permit the crane to travers a gap in the runway similar to Applicant’s claimed invention.
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 JUAN J CAMPOS, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5229. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 W. Hodge can be reached on phone number (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJC/
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654