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 .
Drawings
The amendments to the Drawings (see DRW of 08/04/2026 2 pages) have been reviewed and are accepted.
Upon further review of the 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 following claimed limitations (see below) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The claimed limitations not shown are:
“first articulation points” (see claim 1 line 17, claim 21 line 18, and claim 22 line 17, the drawings must show all claimed structure)
“second articulation points” (see claim 1 line 18, claim 21 line 19, and claim 22 line 18, the drawings must show all claimed structure)
“wherein the jib is foldable against the tower” (claim 16, none of the figures show the jib foldable against the tower)
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
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the guying cables” (see last line) is objected to because guying cables are not mentioned earlier in the claim. Did Applicant mean to write -the bracing tensioners-?
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10-11, 15-18, 20, and 22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “wherein a second pair of guy supports is articulated along the jib on the tower in a lower third thereof, wherein the second pair of guy supports spread out in a V-shape and articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base” (see last 4 lines, i.e. lines 25-28) renders the claim indefinite because limitation leaves the claim unclear as to whether second pair of guy supports are articulated 1) along the jib or 2) on the tower. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. For this office action, this limitation will be interpreted as -wherein a second pair of guy supports is articulated on the tower-. This interpretation appears to be consistent with the amendment in claim 21 (see lines 16-19, starting with “wherein a second pair of guy supports …”).
Are a second pair of guy supports articulated along the jib? Or are the second pair of guy supports articulated along on the tower?
Regarding claim 5, the limitation of “bracing tensioners” (line 2) renders the claim indefinite because the claim is unclear as to whether “bracing tensioners” (line 2) refers to 1) “bracing tensioners” of claim 1 line 15, or 2) are second bracing tensioners. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. What is the relationship between “bracing tensioners” of this claim and the bracing tensioners of claim 1 line 15?
For purposes of examination, “bracing tensioners” of this claim will be considered as referring to the “bracing tensioners” of claim 1 line 15.
Applicant may want to consider amending the claim by changing “bracing tensioners” to -the bracing tensioners-.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of “bracing tensioners” (line 2) renders the claim indefinite because the claim is unclear as to whether “bracing tensioners” (line 2) refers to 1) “bracing tensioners” of claim 1 line 15, or 2) are second bracing tensioners. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. What is the relationship between “bracing tensioners” of this claim and the bracing tensioners of claim 1 line 15?
For purposes of examination, “bracing tensioners” of this claim will be considered as referring to the “bracing tensioners” of claim 1 line 15.
Applicant may want to consider amending the claim by changing “bracing tensioners that run substantially straight past the first pair of guy supports which are spread out in a V-shaped manner” to -the bracing tensioners run substantially straight past the first pair of guy supports which are spread out in a V-shaped manner-.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation of “an undercarriage” (line 3) renders the claim indefinite because the limitation leaves the claim unclear as to whether 1) “an undercarriage” refers to “a revolving or supporting platform” of claim 1 line 16, or 2) is additional structure to “a revolving or support platform” of claim 1 line 16. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. What is the relationship between an undercarriage of this claim and a revolving or support platform of claim 1 line 16?
For purposes of examination, “an undercarriage” of this claim will be considered as referring to the “a revolving or support platform” of claim 1 line 16.
Applicant may want to consider amending the claim by changing “an undercarriage suitable for road transport, wherein the tower and the jib are erectably mounted on the undercarriage” to -the revolving or support platform is suitable for road transport, wherein the tower and the jib are erectably mounted on the revolving or support platform-.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation of “bracing tensioners” (line 2) renders the claim indefinite because the claim is unclear as to whether “bracing tensioners” (line 2) refers to 1) “bracing tensioners” of claim 1 line 15, or 2) are second bracing tensioners. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. What is the relationship between “bracing tensioners” of this claim and the bracing tensioners of claim 1 line 15?
For purposes of examination, “bracing tensioners” of this claim will be considered as referring to the “bracing tensioners” of claim 1 line 15.
Applicant may want to consider amending the claim by changing “bracing tensioners that have a distance from each other along the tower” to -the bracing tensioners have a distance from each other along the tower-.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation of “bracing tensioners” (line 2) renders the claim indefinite because the claim is unclear as to whether “bracing tensioners” (line 2) refers to 1) “bracing tensioners” of claim 1 line 15, or 2) are second bracing tensioners. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. What is the relationship between “bracing tensioners” of this claim and the bracing tensioners of claim 1 line 15?
For purposes of examination, “bracing tensioners” of this claim will be considered as referring to the “bracing tensioners” of claim 1 line 15.
Applicant may want to consider amending the claim by changing “bracing tensioners that run substantially parallel to each other along the tower” to -the bracing tensioners run substantially parallel to each other along the tower-.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation of “wherein a second pair of guy supports is articulated along the jib on the tower in a lower third thereof, wherein the second pair of guy supports spread out in a V-shape and articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base” (see lines 25-28) renders the claim indefinite because limitation leaves the claim unclear as to whether second pair of guy supports are articulated 1) along the jib or 2) on the tower. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. For this office action, this limitation will be interpreted as -wherein a second pair of guy supports is articulated on the tower-. This interpretation appears to be consistent with the amendment in claim 21 (see lines 16-19, starting with “wherein a second pair of guy supports …”).
Are a second pair of guy supports articulated along the jib? Or are the second pair of guy supports articulated along on the tower?
Please review all claims before the formal response is submitted, as any new 112(b) rejections introduced in the response may be grounds for a Final Rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 18, this claim claims “wherein the guying system further comprises bracing tensioners that have a distance from each other along the tower in a direction transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane which is greater than a width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane, wherein the distance of the bracing tensioners from each other along the tower is from 125% to 500% of the width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane”.
However, claim 1 lines 20-24 already claim a similar limitation, except wherein the distance of the bracing tensioners from each other is from 150% to 300% of the width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane.
As the claimed range of claim 18 is broader than the range of claim 1 lines 20-24, claim 18 does not further limit the claim subject matter of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 5-6, 10-11, 15-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verchere (US Publication 2003/0127409 A1) in view of Nakamura (JP 2006/273530 A).
Regarding claim 1, Verchere discloses a crane (see figures 1-11, especially figures 1-2) comprising:
A tower crane (see figures 1-11, especially figures 1-2) comprises:
a tower (5, 6, and 7) which carries a jib (11), from which a hoisting cable (considered the cable of block 13) runs off, wherein the tower comprises a vertically standing position (see figure 2) during crane operation, wherein the jib extends horizontally in an operational position (see figure 2),
a hoisting rope (considered the cable of block 13), wherein the hoisting rope runs off from a trolley movable along the jib (see figure 2),
a guying system (30, 27, 26, 28, and 29), wherein the guying system runs, at least in part, along the tower (see figure 2), wherein the longitudinal center plane runs through the tower and the jib,
wherein the guying system is led across an interface (see figure 2) between the tower and the jib along the tower and along the jib and in a direction transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane (see figure 2), and
wherein a second pair of guy supports (30, see figure 2) is articulated on the tower in a lower third thereof (see figure 2).
Verchere does not disclose 1) wherein a first pair of the guy supports are spread out in a V-shaped manner and are articulated on the tower between a lower end of the tower and the jib, 2) the guy system is spread out by guy supports transverse to a longitudinal center plane of the crane, and 3) wherein the second pair of guy supports are articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base.
Nakamura discloses a mobile crane (see figures 4-5) comprising a pair of guy supports (37, see figure 5) in a V-shaped manner (see figure 5) on the crane (see figures 4-5) on left and right sides relative to a boom hoisting surface Y (see figure 5 and paragraph 0005 of provided machine translation) and tilting hydraulic cylinders pivotally attached to both the guy supports which changes the tilt angle α of the guy supports.
Nakamura teaches that the configuration of the guy supports (37) is selected to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane (see paragraph 0006 of the provided machine translation).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of crane of Verchere by providing an additional guy support (as a first pair guy support) to the top of the tower, to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane as taught by Nakamura, and/or to increase the amount for the bracing tensioners.
Further, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of crane of Verchere as modified by Nakamura by substituting a pair of guy supports as taught Nakamura for all of single guy supports of Verchere as modified above, to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane as taught by Nakamura, and/or to increase the amount for the bracing tensioners.
With the modification of Verchere in view of Nakamura above, the guying system is spread out by guy supports transverse to a longitudinal center plane of the crane and at least one pair of the guy supports are spread out in a V-shaped manner.
Verchere as modified by Nakamura discloses the claimed invention except for the second pair of guy supports spread out in a V-shape and articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the second pair of guy supports spread out in a V-shape and articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The second pair of guy supports spread out in a V-shape and articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base is a result-effective range because the recognized result would be to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane as taught by Nakamura and/or to increase the amount for the bracing tensioners.
The difference between the claimed invention of independent claim 1 and the prior art of Verchere as modified by Nakamura is the second pair of guy supports spread out in a V-shape and articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base. The discovering of an optimum range of a result effective range would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Verchere discloses a bracing tensioner (26, 28, and 29, see figure 2) and the lower end of the bracing tensioner is connected to a revolving platform or support platform (3, see figure 2). Verchere further discloses a first articulation point (considered the point of connection between 29 and 3 in figure 2) arranged on the revolving or supporting platform (3, see figure 2) substantially vertically below second articulation point (considered the point of connection between 30 and 6 in figure 2) of the guy supports (30, see figure 2) for the bracing tensioners (see figure 2).
Verchere does not disclose multiple bracing tensioners. Thus, the difference between Verchere and the limitation of lines 15-19 of the claim is a matter of duplication of parts.
Nakamura discloses a mobile crane (see figures 4-5) and teaches of providing multiple tensioners (22, see figures 1-2) to the mobile crane (see figures 4-5).
Nakamura further teaches that the configuration of guy supports (37) is selected to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane (see paragraph 0006 of the provided machine translation).
Further, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of crane of Verchere as modified by Nakamura by providing at least one more bracing tensioner to the crane of Verchere as modified by Nakamura, to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane as taught by Nakamura, to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and/or as the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
With the modification of Verchere as modified by Nakamura above, the bracing tensioners have a distance from each other (considered the distance separating one of the bracing tensioners from the other of the bracing tensioners) and along the tower in a direction transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane which is greater than a width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane (As the guy supports of Verchere as modified by Nakamura are spread out in a V-shaped manner, the bracing tensioners are arranged along the tower at a width greater than the width of the tower.)
Verchere as modified by Nakamura teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the distance of the bracing tensioners from each other along the tower is from 150% to 300% of the width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the distance of the bracing tensioners from each other along the tower is from 150% to 300% of the width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The distance of the bracing tensioners from each other along the tower is from 150% to 300% of the width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane is a result-effective range because the recognized result would be to 1) absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane as taught by Nakamura (see paragraph 0006 of the provided machine translation of Nakamura) and/or 2) prevent bracing tensioners from coming into contact with one another during setup and breakdown of the crane.
The distance of the bracing tensioners from each other along the tower is from 150% to 300% of the width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane. The discovering of an optimum range of a result effective range would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
With the modification of Verchere as modified by Nakamura above, the guying system further comprises the bracing tensioners guided along the tower in a bracing plane extending upright and perpendicular to the longitudinal center plane of the crane and arranged at a distance from the tower on a tower rear side facing away from the jib, regarding claim 5.
With the modification of Verchere as modified by Nakamura above, the guying system further comprises the bracing tensioners that run substantially straight past the first pair of guy supports which are spread out in a V-shaped manner, regarding claim 6.
With the modification of Verchere as modified by Nakamura above, the distance of the bracing tensioners from each other along the tower is from 125% to 500% of the width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane, regarding claim 18.
Regarding claim 10, Verchere as modified by Nakamura discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the adjustment apparatus has an adjustment area for the spread angle β in the range of 2 times 10° to 2 times 60°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the adjustment apparatus having an adjustment area for the spread angle β in the range of 2 times 10° to 2 times 60°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The adjustment apparatus having an adjustment area for the spread angle β in the range of 2 times 10° to 2 times 60° is a result-effective range because the recognized result would be to provide an optimum angle of the guy supports and to maintain the tilt angle of the guy supports constant during operation as taught by Nakamura.
The adjustment apparatus has an adjustment area for the spread angle β in the range of 2 times 10° to 2 times 60°. The discovering of an optimum range of a result effective range would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Verchere as modified by Nakamura discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the adjustment apparatus has an adjustment area for the spread angle β in the range of 2 times 15° to 2 times 30°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the adjustment apparatus having an adjustment area for the spread angle β in the range of 2 times 15° to 2 times 30°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The adjustment apparatus having an adjustment area for the spread angle β in the range of 2 times 15° to 2 times 30° is a result-effective range because the recognized result would be to provide an optimum angle of the guy supports and to maintain the tilt angle of the guy supports constant during operation as taught by Nakamura.
The adjustment apparatus has an adjustment area for the spread angle β in the range of 2 times 15° to 2 times 30°. The discovering of an optimum range of a result effective range would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, with the modification of Verchere as modified by Nakamura above (see rejection to claim 1), the guying system is led beyond the interface between the tower and the jib in a spatially spread-out manner and is spatially spread out both along the tower and along the jib in a direction transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane.
Regarding claim 16, Verchere further shows wherein the jib is foldable against the tower (see figures 1-6).
Regarding claim 17, Verchere further shows the tower crane of claim 16, and the revolving or supporting platform (3, see figure 2, i.e. an undercarriage) is suitable for road transport (see figures 1-2), wherein the tower and the jib are erectably mounted on the undercarriage (see figures 1-6).
Regarding claim 20, with the modification of Verchere as modified by Nakamura above (see rejection to claim 1), the bracing tensioners run substantially parallel to each other along the tower.
Regarding claim 21, Verchere discloses a crane (see figures 1-11, especially figures 1-2) comprising:
A tower crane (see figures 1-11, especially figures 1-2) comprises:
a tower (5, 6, and 7) which carries a jib (11), from which a hoisting cable (considered the cable of block 13) runs off, wherein the tower comprises a vertically standing position (see figure 2) during crane operation, wherein the jib extends horizontally in an operational position (see figure 2),
a hoisting rope (considered the cable of block 13), wherein the hoisting rope runs off from a trolley movable along the jib (see figure 2),
a guying system (30, 27, 26, 28, and 29), wherein the guying system runs, at least in part, along the tower (see figure 2), wherein the longitudinal center plane runs through the tower and the jib,
wherein the guying system is led across an interface (see figure 2) between the tower and the jib along the tower and along the jib and in a direction transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane (see figure 2), and
wherein a second pair of guy supports (30, see figure 2) is articulated on the tower in a lower third thereof (see figure 2).
Verchere further shows a third guy support (27, see figure 2) on the jib.
Verchere does not disclose 1) wherein a first pair of the guy supports are spread out in a V-shaped manner and are articulated on the tower between a lower end of the tower and the jib, 2) the guy system is spread out by guy supports transverse to a longitudinal center plane of the crane, 3) wherein the second pair of guy supports are articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base, and 4) the third pair of guy supports in a V-shaped.
Nakamura discloses a mobile crane (see figures 4-5) comprising a pair of guy supports (37, see figure 5) in a V-shaped manner (see figure 5) on the crane (see figures 4-5) on left and right sides relative to a boom hoisting surface Y (see figure 5 and paragraph 0005 of provided machine translation) and tilting hydraulic cylinders pivotally attached to both the guy supports which changes the tilt angle α of the guy supports.
Nakamura teaches that the configuration of the guy supports (37) is selected to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane (see paragraph 0006 of the provided machine translation).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of crane of Verchere by providing an additional guy support (as a first pair guy support) to the top of the tower, to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane as taught by Nakamura, and/or to increase the amount for the bracing tensioners.
Further, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of crane of Verchere as modified by Nakamura substituting a pair of guy supports as taught Nakamura for all of single guy supports (including the third guy support) of Verchere as modified above, to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane as taught by Nakamura, and/or to increase the amount for the bracing tensioners.
With the modification above, the first pair of guy supports are configured to provide the jib with lateral support against wind force and the tower with lateral stiffening (as crane of Verchere as modified by Nakamura is obvious to the claimed structure of this claim, the crane of Verchere as modified by Nakamura functions to provide lateral support and lateral stiffening similar to Applicant’s claimed invention).
With the modification of Verchere in view of Nakamura above, the guying system is spread out by guy supports transverse to a longitudinal center plane of the crane and at least one pair of the guy supports are spread out in a V-shaped manner.
Verchere as modified by Nakamura discloses the claimed invention except for the second pair of guy supports spread out in a V-shape and articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the second pair of guy supports spread out in a V-shape and articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The second pair of guy supports spread out in a V-shape and articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base is a result-effective range because the recognized result would be to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane as taught by Nakamura and/or to increase the amount for the bracing tensioners.
The difference between the claimed invention of independent claim 1 and the prior art of Verchere as modified by Nakamura is the second pair of guy supports spread out in a V-shape and articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base. The discovering of an optimum range of a result effective range would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Verchere discloses a bracing tensioner (26, 28, and 29, see figure 2) and the lower end of the bracing tensioner is connected to a revolving platform or support platform (3, see figure 2). Verchere further discloses a first articulation point (considered the point of connection between 29 and 3 in figure 2) arranged on the revolving or supporting platform (3, see figure 2) substantially vertically below second articulation point (considered the point of connection between 30 and 6 in figure 2) of the guy supports (30, see figure 2) for the bracing tensioners (see figure 2).
Verchere does not disclose multiple bracing tensioners. Thus, the difference between Verchere and the limitation of lines 15-19 of the claim is a matter of duplication of parts.
Nakamura discloses a mobile crane (see figures 4-5) and teaches of providing multiple tensioners (22, see figures 1-2) to the mobile crane (see figures 4-5).
Nakamura further teaches that the configuration of guy supports (37) is selected to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane (see paragraph 0006 of the provided machine translation).
Further, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of crane of Verchere as modified by Nakamura by providing at least one more bracing tensioner to the crane of Verchere as modified by Nakamura, to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane as taught by Nakamura, to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and/or as the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
With the modification of Verchere as modified by Nakamura above, the bracing tensioners have a distance from each other (considered the distance separating one of the bracing tensioners from the other of the bracing tensioners) and along the tower in a direction transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane which is greater than a width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane (As the guy supports of Verchere as modified by Nakamura are spread out in a V-shaped manner, the bracing tensioners are arranged along the tower at a width greater than the width of the tower.)
Verchere as modified by Nakamura teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the distance of the bracing tensioners from each other along the tower is from 150% to 300% of the width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the distance of the bracing tensioners from each other along the tower is from 150% to 300% of the width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The distance of the bracing tensioners from each other along the tower is from 150% to 300% of the width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane is a result-effective range because the recognized result would be to 1) absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane as taught by Nakamura (see paragraph 0006 of the provided machine translation of Nakamura) and/or 2) prevent bracing tensioners from coming into contact with one another during setup and breakdown of the crane.
The distance of the bracing tensioners from each other along the tower is from 150% to 300% of the width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane. The discovering of an optimum range of a result effective range would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 22, Verchere discloses a crane (see figures 1-11, especially figures 1-2) comprising:
A tower crane (see figures 1-11, especially figures 1-2) comprises:
a tower (5, 6, and 7) which carries a jib (11), from which a hoisting cable (considered the cable of block 13) runs off, wherein the tower comprises a vertically standing position (see figure 2) during crane operation, wherein the jib extends horizontally in an operational position (see figure 2),
a hoisting rope (considered the cable of block 13), wherein the hoisting rope runs off from a trolley movable along the jib (see figure 2),
a guying system (30, 27, 26, 28, and 29), wherein the guying system runs, at least in part, along the tower (see figure 2), wherein the longitudinal center plane runs through the tower and the jib,
wherein the guying system is led across an interface (see figure 2) between the tower and the jib along the tower and along the jib and in a direction transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane (see figure 2), and
wherein a second pair of guy supports (30, see figure 2) is articulated on the tower in a lower third thereof (see figure 2).
Verchere does not disclose 1) wherein a first pair of the guy supports are spread out in a V-shaped manner and are articulated on the tower between a lower end of the tower and the jib, 2) the guy system is spread out by guy supports transverse to a longitudinal center plane of the crane, 3) wherein the second pair of guy supports are articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base, and 4) an adjustment apparatus.
Nakamura discloses a mobile crane (see figures 4-5) comprising a pair of guy supports (37, see figure 5) in a V-shaped manner (see figure 5) on the crane (see figures 4-5) on left and right sides relative to a boom hoisting surface Y (see figure 5 and paragraph 0005 of provided machine translation) and tilting hydraulic cylinders pivotally attached to both the guy supports which changes the tilt angle α of the guy supports.
Nakamura teaches that the configuration of the guy supports (37) is selected to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane (see paragraph 0006 of the provided machine translation).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of crane of Verchere by providing an additional guy support (as a first pair guy support) to the top of the tower, to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane as taught by Nakamura, and/or to increase the amount for the bracing tensioners.
Further, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of crane of Verchere as modified by Nakamura substituting a pair of guy supports as taught Nakamura for all of single guy supports of Verchere as modified above, to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane as taught by Nakamura, and/or to increase the amount for the bracing tensioners.
With the modification of Verchere in view of Nakamura above, the guying system is spread out by guy supports transverse to a longitudinal center plane of the crane and at least one pair of the guy supports are spread out in a V-shaped manner.
Verchere as modified by Nakamura discloses the claimed invention except for the second pair of guy supports spread out in a V-shape and articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the second pair of guy supports spread out in a V-shape and articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The second pair of guy supports spread out in a V-shape and articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base is a result-effective range because the recognized result would be to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane as taught by Nakamura and/or to increase the amount for the bracing tensioners.
The difference between the claimed invention of independent claim 1 and the prior art of Verchere as modified by Nakamura is the second pair of guy supports spread out in a V-shape and articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3% of a tower height measured from a tower base. The discovering of an optimum range of a result effective range would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Nakamura further teaches the tilting hydraulic cylinders (i.e. an adjustment apparatus) provide an optimum angle of the guy supports and maintains the tilt angle α of the guy supports constant during operation (see paragraph 0006 of the provided machine translation).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of crane of Verchere as modified by Nakamura by providing all of the guy supports with a pair of tilting hydraulic cylinders (i.e. an adjustment apparatus), to provide an optimum angle of the guy supports and to maintain the tilt angle of the guy supports constant during operation as taught by Nakamura.
With the modification of Verchere as modified by Nakamura above, the adjustment apparatus variably adjusts a spread angle β of guy supports, and the adjustment apparatus comprises a hydraulic cylinder for motorized spreading out of the guy supports.
Further, with the modification of Verchere as modified by Nakamura above, the adjustment apparatus is configured to allow for adjustment of the spread angle (as crane of Verchere as modified by Nakamura is obvious to the claimed structure of this claim, the crane of Verchere as modified by Nakamura functions similar to Applicant’s claimed invention).
Verchere discloses a bracing tensioner (26, 28, and 29, see figure 2) and the lower end of the bracing tensioner is connected to a revolving platform or support platform (3, see figure 2). Verchere further discloses a first articulation point (considered the point of connection between 29 and 3 in figure 2) arranged on the revolving or supporting platform (3, see figure 2) substantially vertically below second articulation point (considered the point of connection between 30 and 6 in figure 2) of the guy supports (30, see figure 2) for the bracing tensioners (see figure 2).
Verchere does not disclose multiple bracing tensioners. Thus, the difference between Verchere and the limitation of lines 15-19 of the claim is a matter of duplication of parts.
Nakamura discloses a mobile crane (see figures 4-5) and teaches of providing multiple tensioners (22, see figures 1-2) to the mobile crane (see figures 4-5).
Nakamura further teaches that the configuration of guy supports (37) is selected to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane (see paragraph 0006 of the provided machine translation).
Further, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of crane of Verchere as modified by Nakamura by providing at least one more bracing tensioner to the crane of Verchere as modified by Nakamura, to absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane as taught by Nakamura, to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and/or as the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
With the modification of Verchere as modified by Nakamura above, the bracing tensioners have a distance from each other (considered the distance separating one of the bracing tensioners from the other of the bracing tensioners) and along the tower in a direction transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane which is greater than a width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane (As the guy supports of Verchere as modified by Nakamura are spread out in a V-shaped manner, the bracing tensioners are arranged along the tower at a width greater than the width of the tower.)
Verchere as modified by Nakamura teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the distance of the bracing tensioners from each other along the tower is from 150% to 300% of the width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the distance of the bracing tensioners from each other along the tower is from 150% to 300% of the width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The distance of the bracing tensioners from each other along the tower is from 150% to 300% of the width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane is a result-effective range because the recognized result would be to 1) absorb part or all of the vertical and horizontal bending moments acting on the crane as taught by Nakamura (see paragraph 0006 of the provided machine translation of Nakamura) and/or 2) prevent bracing tensioners from coming into contact with one another during setup and breakdown of the crane.
The distance of the bracing tensioners from each other along the tower is from 150% to 300% of the width of the tower transverse to the longitudinal center plane of the crane. The discovering of an optimum range of a result effective range would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 4, 2026 (see Remarks Rem of 08/04/2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Thus, Verchere does not teach or suggest the claimed two-level guying system. In
particular, Verchere teaches neither a first pair of V-shaped guy supports nor a second pair of
laterally spread guy supports articulated to the tower at 10% to 33.3% of the tower height.
Verchere further fails to teach a pair of lower bracing tensioners whose lower articulation
points are arranged substantially vertically below corresponding upper articulation points on
the guy supports, or whose transverse spacing is greater than the tower width, that in
particular is in the range of 150% to 300% of the tower width.”
“Applicant further points out that "link 30" of Verchere is not provided for positioning
or stabilizing the cable 28 in the working configuration (in such working status, see Fig. 2
reproduced below, the cable is "straight" under tensile forces and passes link 30 without
bending / without deflection), and thus, no positioning/stabilizing is provided by the link 30
in the crane's erected working configuration. Such link 30 is only necessary for helping the
cable find its position during unfolding the crane and folding the crane from/to its transport
configuration, i.e., to help prevent the cable 28 from getting tangled up when
folding/unfolding the crane (see Fig. 4 reproduced below).”
See page 2 line 22 to page 3 line 5.
The Examiner respectfully does not agree for the following reason(s):
First, the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of any of claims 1, 21, and 22 because none of these claims positively claim two-level guying system.
Second, as discussed in the rejections to claims 1, 21, and 22, the combination of Verchere as modified by Nakamura is obvious to at least one pair of V-shaped guy supports articulated to the tower at 10% to 33.3% of the tower height.
Third, as discussed in the rejections to claims 1, 21, and 22, Verchere shows a lower articulation point (considered the point of connection between 29 and 3 in figure 2) arranged vertically below an upper articulation point (considered the point of connection between 30 and 6 in figure 2) on the guy supports.
Fourth, the claimed range of 150% to 300% of the tower width is obvious, as such a range falls under routine optimization.
Fifth, as shown in figure 2 in Verchere, the guy support (30) is in contact with parts (28 and 29) of the bracing tensioner. As the guy support (30) of Verchere is obvious to the claimed guy supports of claims 1, 21, and 22, the guy support of Verchere positions or stabilizes the bracing tensioner similar to Applicant’s claimed guy supports.
Applicant argues:
“Nakamura does not disclose a vertically standing tower during operation carrying a
horizontally extending jib, a second pair of guy supports positioned at different heights along
such a tower or, in particular, a second pair of guy supports positioned at 10% to 33.3% of
the tower height.”, see page 4 lines 1-4.
The Examiner respectfully does not agree because the argument is not commensurate with scope of the rejections to claims 1, 21, and 22 because the combination of Verchere and Nakamura are obvious to the argued limitations.
Applicant argues:
“A modification that introduces additional guy supports into the lower region of the folding mast of Verchere would necessarily require consideration of the folding path, the arrangement of the individual
parts of the crane, force transmission, ram and linkage arrangements, and potentially the
automatic control sequence.”
“Second, the underlying problem is already achieved by the first pair of guy supports
obtained from Nakamura, and the Office action does not identify a reason why the skilled
person should add a second pair specifically in the lower region. The feature combination
should be regarded as one unit, not merely as isolated features. The second pair of guy
supports is also not merely a duplicate positioned next to the first pair. Its placement at 10%
to 33.3% of the tower height changes the force distribution and forms part of the geometry of
the entire guying system.”
See page 4 line 12 to page 3 line 5.
The Examiner respectfully does not agree because the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the rejections to claims 1, 21, and 22. As discussed in the rejections of each of these claims, Verchere discloses a guy support (30, see figure 2) at the lower end of a tower. The placement of the guy support of Verchere as modified by Nakamura placement at 10% to 33.3% of the tower height would be obvious to routine optimization.
Applicant argues:
“As discussed above, neither Verchere nor Nakamura teaches or suggests a second pair
of guy supports positioned at any height along the tower. There is consequently no disclosed
continuum of possible tower heights for a second pair from which the skilled person would
merely select an optimum or workable value. The cited references also do not recognize the
height of such a second pair (or a first pair) as a parameter to be optimized. Rather,
Nakamura "naturally" selects the telescopic boom tip as suitable attachment position for the
first pair of guy supports. The claimed range is therefore not a routine optimization of a
value with known general conditions, but a structural geometric boundary.”
See page 5 lines 15-22.
The Examiner respectfully does not agree for the following reason(s):
First, Nakamura teaches guy supports (20, see figure 1) at the top of a tower (13, see figure 2). These are a teaching of a pair of first guy supports because Verchere discloses a second guy support (30, see figure 2).
Second, as the second guy support of Verchere (see figure 2) is located at the lower region of a tower (5, 6, and 7, see figure 2), positioning such a guy support in the range of 10% to 33.3% of the tower height would still fall under routine optimization.
Applicant argues:
“ Neither Verchere nor Nakamura teach or suggest paired lower and upper articulation points, and in particular not articulation points satisfying the claimed vertical relationship.”
See page 5 lines 24-26.
The Examiner respectfully does not agree because Verchere discloses a first articulation point (considered the point of connection between 29 and 3 in figure 2) arranged on the revolving or supporting platform (3, see figure 2) substantially vertically below second articulation point (considered the point of connection between 30 and 6 in figure 2) of the guy supports (30, see figure 2) for the bracing tensioners (see figure 2).
Applicant argues:
“Neither Verchere nor Nakamura teaches the spacing between the bracing tensioners, the width of the tower as reference dimension, a spacing of the tensioners that is greater than the tower width, or a spacing of 150% to 300% of that width. The inwardly converging arrangement of Nakamura instead illustrates a completely different force-transmission geometry. Moreover, Nakamura does neither explicitly nor implicitly relate the mast-tip distance to the width of a tower. Thus, the claimed parameter is not a value selected from a range disclosed by Nakamura. Before such a range can be characterized as optimized, the relevant structural distance and its relationship to the intended result would first have to be recognized by Nakamura, which is not the case here.”
See page 6 lines 7-15.
The Examiner respectfully does not agree because the following reason(s):
Verchere teaches a bracing tensioner (26, 28, and 29) going from a revolving platform (3, see figure 2) to a jib (11). Nakamura teaches V-shaped guy supports. The combination of Verchere in view of Nakamura is obvious to providing a spacing between the bracing tensioners.
As the guy supports as taught by Nakamura are V-shaped, the guy supports and bracing tensioners of Verchere in view of Nakamura are spaced apart at a width greater than the width of the tower. As the limitation of a spacing of 150% to 300% of tower width is a numerical range, this limitation is obvious as a matter of routine optimization.
Applicant argues:
“Even assuming that the skilled person would have considered using parts of Nakamura in the crane
of Verchere, Nakamura would at most suggest a pair of inclined masts located at the jib
support or boom-tip region. It does not provide a reason to duplicate and relocate the
supports to a position between 10% to 33.3% of the height of Verchere's folding tower.”
See page 6 lines 19-23.
The Examiner respectfully does not agree because the following reason(s):
The argument is not commensurate with the scope of the rejections to claims 1, 21, and 22 because there is no relocation required in the rejection of Verchere in view of Nakamura. As shown in figure 2 of Verchere, Verchere shows a guy support (30) at the lower region of a tower (5, 6, and 7). The positioning of the guy support as taught by Verchere at a position in the range of 10% to 33.3% of the tower height is obvious as a matter of routine optimization.
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
