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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/21/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites “the elongated luffing cable is the only cable attached to the boom.” This is not supported by the original disclosure. For example, original claim 1 required a “main hoisting cable” which is supported by the boom. There is no support anywhere in the original disclosure which would indicate that the luffing cable is the only cable attached to the boom. How would the crane perform its primary function of lifting objects if there was no hoist line attached to the boom?
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 17-26 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.
Claim 17 (last line) recites “wherein the elongated luffing cable is the only cable attached to the boom,” but also requires “a main hoisting cable” on the crane. It is not clear what these recitations mean. How can something have two separate cables, but one of the cables is the “only” cable? What is meant by this recitation?
Claim 17 is interpreted as best understood below.
Claim Rejections - 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, 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 17-21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art (see instant “BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION” section of Substitute Specification filed 09/22/23) in view of DE 102011015881 A1 (hereinafter “Moebius”).
Regarding claim 17 Applicant admits that the following offshore crane vessel is known:
A crane (page 1 lines 31-32), the crane comprising:
a pedestal (p. 1 l.33);
a superstructure which is rotationally supported by the pedestal for rotation of the superstructure relative to the pedestal about a vertical slew axis, the superstructure comprising a boom connection member (see p. 2, ll. 1-3);
a boom having a longitudinal axis and a length of 60-200 meters between a pivot end and a tip end, the pivot end being connected to the boom connection member so that the boom is pivotable up and down about a horizontal boom pivot axis (see p. 2 ll. 4-8);
a boom rest to support the boom in the horizontal rest position (see p. 2 l. 9);
a boom luffing assembly for pivoting the boom about the horizontal boom pivot axis, comprising a boom luffing winch and an elongated luffing member extending to the boom (see p. 2 ll. 10-12); and
a main hoisting device for hoisting a load, comprising a main hoisting winch, at least one associated main hoisting cable and a main hoist block assembly supported by a head structure (see p. 2 ll. 13-15).
Applicant does not admit any of the “traveling head structure” limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Moebius teaches a vessel-mounted crane (see title) with a main hoist block assembly (36) a boom (16). Moebius further teaches wherein a head structure (26) supporting the main hoisting block (36) is a travelling head structure (26), the travelling head structure (26) being slidable (see abstract) along a part of the boom (16) from the tip end (TE, see annotated figure below) to a second position (SP; i.e. 26 can travel anywhere between stops 46/48) on the boom (16), and
PNG
media_image1.png
643
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein an elongated luffing cable (L) can engage the boom (16) at a tip end (TE) and at a second luffing position (SP) opposite the main hoist block assembly (36) at the second position (SP) of the travelling head structure (26) (i.e. due to sliding of 26);
wherein the elongated luffing cable (L) is [one of the cables] attached to the boom (i.e. see rejection under 35 USC 112(b), above).
Regarding claim 18 Applicant’s admitted prior art, as modified per Moebius, teaches the above crane, and further teaches wherein the boom (Moebius 16) is reinforced (i.e. has multiple chords and lattice structures for strength) at the second position (moebius SP) of the travelling head structure (moebius 26) to allow a transfer of the load of the travelling head structure (moebius 26) with the main hoist block assembly (Moebius 36) to the boom luffing assembly (Moebius “L” as combined above) allowing luffing at the second luffing position (at Moebius SP) opposite the main hoist block assembly (Moebius 36) at the second position (moebius SP) of the travelling head structure (moebius 26).
Regarding claim 19 Applicant’s admitted prior art, as modified per Moebius, teaches the above crane, and further teaches wherein the elongated luffing cable (Moebius L, see below) is connected to the travelling head structure (Moebius 26) and is slidable with the travelling head structure (Moebius 26) along the boom (Moebius 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
643
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20 Applicant’s admitted prior art, as modified per Moebius, teaches the above crane, and further teaches wherein the elongated luffing cable (Moebius L; as combined above) comprises an end part (Moebius 18) fixed to the tip end (Moebius TE, above) of the boom (Moebius 16), and an auxiliary structure (Moebius L) attachable to the boom (Moebius 16) (indirectly via Moebius 26) at a second luffing position (at Moebius SP, above) opposite the main hoist block assembly (Moebius 36) at the second position (Moebius SP, above) of the travelling head structure (Moebius 26).
Regarding claim 21 Applicant’s admitted prior art, as modified per Moebius, teaches the above crane, and further teaches wherein the elongated luffing cable (Moebius L, above) comprises an end part which [selectively moves with the head structure] at the tip end (Moebius TE, above) and at a second luffing position (at Moebius SP, above) opposite the main hoist block assembly (Moebius 36) at the second position (moebius SP) of the travelling head structure (moebius 26). Applicant does not admit a detachable end element on the luffing cable. Making things separable is considered well within the purview of an ordinary craftsperson. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the Luffing cable detachable with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to more easily assemble/disassemble the crane.
Regarding claim 23 Applicant’s admitted prior art, as modified per Moebius, teaches the above crane, and further teaches wherein the elongated luffing cable (Moebius L) is connected to the travelling head structure (Moebius 26) and is slidable with the travelling head structure (Moebius 26) along the boom (Moebius 16).
Regarding claim 24 Applicant’s admitted prior art, as modified per Moebius, teaches the above crane, and further teaches offshore crane vessel with a hull and a deck (per Applicant’s admitted prior art), wherein the pedestal of the crane is mounted to or formed integral with the hull of the vessel (i.e. or else the pedestal could not support the crane).
Regarding claim 25 Applicant’s admitted prior art, as modified per Moebius, teaches the above crane, and further teaches a method for operating the crane, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a crane with the travelling head structure (moebius 26) fixed (via holding 26 in place with the actuating cables; i.e. the only degree of freedom relative to the boom is provided by sliding, so stopping the actuating cables fixes the travelling head relative to the boom) at the tip end (Moebius TE) of the boom (Moebius 16);
pivoting the boom (Moebius 16) by the boom luffing assembly (Moebius “L” as combined above) to the horizontal rest position (admitted prior art p. 2, ll. 4-8);
supporting the boom (Moebius 16) on the boom rest (admitted prior art p. 2, l. 9);
detaching (i.e. re-engaging driving cables of 26 to allow relative motion) the travelling head structure (Moebius 26) from the tip end (Moebius TE); and
sliding the travelling head structure (Moebius 26) along the boom (Moebius 16) from the tip end (Moebius TE) to the second position (Moebius SP) on the boom (Moebius 16).
Regarding claim 26 Applicant’s admitted prior art, as modified per Moebius, teaches the above method, and further teaches wherein the crane is brought to an alternative operational position (e.g. Moebius 16), wherein the method further comprises the steps of:
detaching (i.e. re-engaging driving cables of 26 to allow relative motion) the travelling head structure (moebius 26) from the tip end (Moebius TE);
sliding (per Moebius) the travelling head structure (Moebius 26) along the boom (Moebius 16) from the tip end (Moebius TE) to the second position (Moebius SP) on the boom (Moebius 16);
fixing (via holding 26 in place with the actuating cables; i.e. the only degree of freedom relative to the boom is provided by sliding, so stopping the actuating cables fixes the travelling head relative to the boom) the travelling head structure (moebius 26) to the boom (Moebius 16) at the second position (moebius SP), and operating the crane with the travelling head structure (moebius 26) at the second position (moebius SP).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art in view of Moebius, and in further view of US 2013/0125397 A1 (hereinafter “Van den Berg”).
Regarding claim 22 Applicant’s admitted prior art, as modified per Moebius, teaches the above crane vessel. Applicant does not admit to a travelling hoist block structure combined with a single elongated luffing cable extending between the superstructure and the boom. Van den Berg teaches a similar maritime crane with a pivoting boom (2) and travelling hoist device (4). Van den Berg further teaches a single elongated luffing cable extending between the superstructure and the boom (see fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a single luffing cable in the combination above with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide a strong, yet not overly complicated maritime boom luffing system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 13-14 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pages 8-9) that Moebius fails to teach the newly recited claim limitations. This is not persuasive. Applicant’s original disclosure fails to set forth the newly recited claim limitations (see section 112 above). As such, the claims are not clear and definite under the statute. It appears Moebius teaches the newly added limitations as presently understood.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 01/21/26, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claim 1 and its dependents have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time.
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, Victoria P Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/NATHANIEL L ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654