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 drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a trolley drive” (claim 1 line 6), “one pair of the guy supports” (claim 1 lines 9-10), “a second pair of guy supports (claim 1 line 15), “a pair of guy supports” (claim 1 line 16), “a third pair of spread out guy supports” (claim 3 lines 1-2), and “a fourth pair of guy supports” (claim 3 line 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a third pair pair of spread out guy supports” (claim 3 lines 1-2)
“a fourth pair pair of spread out guy supports” (claim 3 line 3)
Both of these limitations are objected to because “pair pair” is a grammatical error. Did Applicant mean -a third pair of spread out guy supports- and -a fourth pair of spread out guy supports-?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 10-13 are 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 10, this claim depends on claim 9. However, claim 9 has been cancelled. As a result, claim 10 does not constitute a further limitation.
Regarding claim 11, this claim depends on claim 9. However, claim 9 has been cancelled. As a result, claim 11 does not constitute a further limitation.
Regarding claim 12, this claim depends on claim 8. However, claim 8 has been cancelled. As a result, claim 12 does not constitute a further limitation.
Regarding claim 13, this claim depends on claim 8. However, claim 8 has been cancelled. As a result, claim 13 does not constitute a further limitation.
Regarding the above claims, 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.
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 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, and 15-20 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 “a longitudinal center plane” (line 13) renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear as to whether or not “a longitudinal center plane” refers to 1) the “a longitudinal center plane” of line 8, or 2) a second longitudinal center plane.
For this office action, “a longitudinal center plane” will be considered as referring to the “a longitudinal center plane” of line 8. Did Applicant mean -the longitudinal center plane-?
Further regarding claim 1, this claim claims “wherein a second pair of guy supports is articulated on the tower in a lower third of the tower, wherein the guying system includes a 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 50% of a tower height measured from a tower base” (see lines 15-18).
First, the above limitation renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear as to whether the “a pair of guy supports” (line 16) refers to 1) the second pair of guy supports (line 15) or 2) an additional pair of guys supports.
For this office action, the “a pair of guy supports” will be considered as referring to the second pair of guy supports (line 15). The Examiner points out that claim 3 already claims a third pair of spread out guy supports and a fourth pair of guy supports.
Second, the above limitation renders the claim indefinite because the limitation of “articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 50%” is unclear as to whether the limitation requires 1) a lower third of the tower (for example 0% to 33.3%) or 2) 10% to 50% of the tower height. The scope of the claim is unclear because the above limitation appears to require two different ranges.
For this office action, the limitation of “articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 50%” will be interpreted as referring to a lower third of the tower in the range of 10% to 33.3%.
Regarding claim 10, “the adjustment apparatus” (line 1) lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 11, “the adjustment apparatus” (line 1) lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 12, “the adjustment apparatus” (line 1) lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13, “the adjustment apparatus” (line 1) lacks antecedent basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Takura (JP 2011/057341 A), Urban (DE 2018116575 A1, see US Publication 2021/0179398 A1 for an English Translation), Nakamura (JP 2006/273530 A), Gevaudant (US Patent 6,276,541) and Gevaudant (US Patent 11,420,851) are considered the closest prior art references to the claimed invention of independent claim 1.
Claim 1 claims:
A tower crane comprises:
a tower which carries a jib, from which a hoisting cable runs off, wherein the tower of comprises a vertically standing position during crane operation, wherein the jib extends horizontally in an operational position,
a hoisting rope, wherein the hoisting rope runs off from a trolley movable along the jib via a trolley drive,
a guying system, wherein the guying system runs, at least in part, along the tower and is spread out by guy supports transverse to a longitudinal center plane of the crane, wherein the longitudinal center plane runs through the tower and the jib, wherein one 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, wherein the guying system is led across an interface between the tower and the jib spatially in a spread out manner both along the tower and along the jib and in a direction transverse to a longitudinal center plane of the crane, and
wherein a second pair of guy supports is articulated on the tower in a lower third of the tower, wherein the guying system includes a 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 50% of a tower height measured from a tower base.
Important Note: Underlining is provided to point out the important areas of the bolded limitations above.
None of Takura, Urban, Nakamura, Gevaudant 541’, nor Gevaudant 851’ nor disclose nor would be obvious to the limitations of 1) “wherein the tower of comprises a vertically standing position during crane operation, wherein the jib extends horizontally in an operational position”, 2) “a hoisting rope, wherein the hoisting rope runs off from a trolley movable along the jib via a trolley drive”, 3) “wherein one 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”, 4) “wherein the guying system is led across an interface between the tower and the jib spatially in a spread out manner both along the tower and along the jib and in a direction transverse to a longitudinal center plane of the crane” and 5) “wherein a second pair of guy supports is articulated on the tower in a lower third of the tower, wherein the guying system includes a pair of guy supports spread out in a V-shape and articulated to the tower in the lower third of the tower”, in conjunction with the remaining limitations of independent claim 1.
Please note that Takura, Urban and Nakamura are directed to derrick cranes (cranes where the jib pivots during operation) and not tower cranes (cranes where the jib does not pivot during operation).
Please note that Gevaudant 541’ and Gevaudant 851’ are tower cranes.
Gevaudant 541’ appears to disclose a tower crane (see figure 1a) comprising a guying system (15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and unnumbered guy support as shown in figure 1a) led across an interface between a tower (4, 5, and 6) and a jib (7, 10, 11, and 12, see figure 1a). Gevaudant 541’ further appears to comprise a jib guy support (15, see figure 1a) and another guy support (unnumbered, considered the support on element 5 in figure 1a) on the tower located approximately 34% to 50% of a tower height measured from a tower base (2, see figure 1a).
Gevaudant 851’ appears to disclose a tower crane (see figure 1a) comprising a guying system (6, 7, 71, 72, 73, and 74) that only goes to the top of the tower (see figure 1). However, the guying system is not lead across an interface between a tower (3, 31, and 32, see figure 1) and a jib (2, 21, 22, and 23, see figure 1). Gevaudant 851’ further appears to comprise a guy support (74) on the tower located approximately 34% to 50% of a tower height measured from a tower base (see figure 1). Further, as shown in figures 1-2, at least the top guy supports (73) on the tower appear to converge together and are not spread out in a V-shaped manner.
Nakamura discloses a mobile derricking 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 a of the guy supports.
As the Gevaudant 541’ and Gevaudant 851’ are tower cranes and Nakamura is a derricking crane, it would not have been obvious to modify at least Gevaudant 541’ to have two pairs of guy supports articulated on the tower of a tower crane in a V-shaped manner because the only teaching of providing two pairs of guy supports articulated on the tower of a tower crane in a V-shaped manner would only come from Applicant’s Specification (i.e. hindsight).
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, Anna M. Momper can be reached on phone number 571-270-5788. 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/
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619