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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 16, 2026 has been entered.
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:
“wherein the tower is configured to be tiltable or telescopic or the jib is foldable again the tower” (see claim 16, the drawings must show all configurations claimed)
“an adjustment apparatus” (see claims 10, 11, and claim 22 last 6 lines, as the drawings do not appear to show an adjustment apparatus)
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 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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for an adjustment apparatus for variably adjusting a spread angle β of the first pair of guy supports and the second guy supports (see last 6 lines), does not reasonably provide enablement for an adjustment apparatus for determining a spread angle β of the first pair of guy supports and the second pair of guy supports. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Regarding the In re Wands Factor of “Amount of direction provided”, paragraphs 0025-0029 and 0052 of the specification appears to disclose the adjustment apparatus may comprise a pivoting device (paragraph 0027), a cross member (paragraph 0027), a telescopic drive (paragraph 0027), a hydraulic cylinder (paragraph 0028), a spindle drive (paragraph 0028), telescopic guy supports (paragraph 0029), a manual spindle drive (paragraph 0029), a manual screw connection (paragraph 0029), a hydraulic cylinder (paragraph 0052) and a spindle drive (paragraph 0052). None of these structures has structure for determining (i.e. decide by choice of alternatives or possibilities) a spread angle β of the first pair of guy supports and the second pair of guy supports. Thus, no direction is provided by the inventor of the adjustment apparatus for determining a spread angle β of the first pair of guy supports and the second pair of guy supports. What direction has Inventor/Applicant provided regarding the adjustment apparatus for determining a spread angle β of the first pair of guy supports and the second pair of guy supports? There does not appear to be control structure disclosed that would be needed so that the adjustment apparatus for determines a spread angle β of the first pair of guy supports and the second pair of guy supports.
Regarding the Wands Factor of “Existence of Working Examples”, the adjustment apparatus as apparently disclosed in the specification is discussed above. However, the specification only appears to disclose an adjustment apparatus for variably adjusting a spread angle β of the first pair of guy supports and the second guy supports. No working example is disclosed for an adjustment apparatus for determining a spread angle β of the first pair of guy supports and the second pair of guy supports. Thus, a single working example for an adjustment apparatus for determining a spread angle β of the first pair of guy supports and the second pair of guy supports is not disclosed. Where in the specification is a working example of an adjustment apparatus for determining a spread angle β of the first pair of guy supports and the second pair of guy supports disclosed? There does not appear to be control structure disclosed that would be needed so that the adjustment apparatus for determines a spread angle β of the first pair of guy supports and the second pair of guy supports.
Regarding the Wands Factor of “Quantity of experimentation needed”, the adjustment apparatus as apparently disclosed in the specification is discussed above. However, the specification only appears to disclose an adjustment apparatus for variably adjusting a spread angle β of the first pair of guy supports and the second guy supports. Because of the significant difference between the disclosure of the specification and of an adjustment apparatus for determining a spread angle β of the first pair of guy supports and the second pair of guy supports, the specification does not provide a reasonable amount of direction or guidance for experimentation. If Applicants do not agree, where in the specification is a working example for an adjustment apparatus for determining a spread angle β of the first pair of guy supports and the second pair of guy supports disclosed? How would one of ordinary skill in the art with the disclosure of the specification arrive at the claimed invention without unreasonable experimentation?
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation of “wherein the adjustment apparatus is configured to allow for adjustment of the spread angle when the crane is ready for operation” is not enabled because the specification does not appear to disclose structure associated with the adjustment apparatus that would allow the claimed adjustment apparatus to be capable of the claimed function.
Regarding the In re Wands Factor of “Amount of direction provided”, no direction is provided by the inventor for an adjustment apparatus configured to allow for adjustment of the spread angle when the crane is ready for operation, as the inventor only appears to provide (see paragraphs 0025-0029 and 0052) direction for the adjustment apparatus to have structure to adjust a spread angle β. What direction has the inventor provided for an adjustment apparatus configured to allow for adjustment of the spread angle when the crane is ready for operation? What disclosed structure of the adjustment apparatus would adjust the spread angle when the crane is ready for operation?
Regarding the Wands Factor of “Existence of Working Examples”, the limitation of this claim is discussed above. However, the specification only appears to disclose the adjustment apparatus to having structure to adjust a spread angle β. No working example is disclosed for an adjustment apparatus configured to allow for adjustment of the spread angle when the crane is ready for operation. Thus, a single working example for the claimed invention is not disclosed. Where in the specification is a working example of an adjustment apparatus configured to allow for adjustment of the spread angle when the crane is ready for operation disclosed?
Regarding the Wands Factor of “Quantity of experimentation needed”, the limitation of this claim is discussed above. However, the specification only appears to disclose the adjustment apparatus to having structure to adjust a spread angle β. Because of the significant difference between the disclosure of the specification and the above limitation, the specification does not provide a reasonable amount of direction or guidance for experimentation. If Applicants do not agree, where in the specification is a working example for the adjustment apparatus being configured to allow for adjustment of the spread angle when the crane is ready for operation disclosed? How would one of ordinary skill in the art with the disclosure of the specification arrive at the claimed invention without unreasonable experimentation?
Further regarding claim 22, the limitation of “wherein the adjustment apparatus is configured to adjust the spread angle depending on transverse wind loads due to cross winds” is not enabled because the specification does not appear to disclose structure associated with the adjustment apparatus that would allow the claimed adjustment apparatus to be capable of the claimed function.
Regarding the In re Wands Factor of “Amount of direction provided”, no direction is provided by the inventor for an adjustment apparatus is configured to adjust the spread angle depending on transverse wind loads due to cross winds, as the inventor only appears to provide (see paragraphs 0025-0029 and 0052) direction for the adjustment apparatus to have structure to adjust a spread angle β. What direction has the inventor provided for an adjustment apparatus is configured to adjust the spread angle depending on transverse wind loads due to cross winds? What disclosed structure of the adjustment apparatus would adjust the spread angle depending on transverse wind loads due to cross winds? The disclosed adjustment apparatus does not appear to comprise any sensor or control structure that would allow the claimed adjustment apparatus to be capable of adjusting the spread angle depending on transverse wind loads due to cross winds.
Regarding the Wands Factor of “Existence of Working Examples”, the limitation of this claim is discussed above. However, the specification only appears to disclose the adjustment apparatus to having structure to adjust a spread angle β. No working example is disclosed for an adjust the spread angle depending on transverse wind loads due to cross winds. Thus, a single working example for the claimed invention is not disclosed. Where in the specification is a working example of an adjust the spread angle depending on transverse wind loads due to cross winds disclosed? The disclosed adjustment apparatus does not appear to comprise any sensor or control structure that would allow the claimed adjustment apparatus to be capable of adjusting the spread angle depending on transverse wind loads due to cross winds.
Regarding the Wands Factor of “Quantity of experimentation needed”, the limitation of this claim is discussed above. However, the specification only appears to disclose the adjustment apparatus to having structure to adjust a spread angle β. Because of the significant difference between the disclosure of the specification and the above limitation, the specification does not provide a reasonable amount of direction or guidance for experimentation. If Applicants do not agree, where in the specification is a working example for the adjustment apparatus being configured to adjust the spread angle depending on transverse wind loads due to cross winds disclosed? How would one of ordinary skill in the art with the disclosure of the specification arrive at the claimed invention without unreasonable experimentation? The disclosed adjustment apparatus does not appear to comprise any sensor or control structure that would allow the claimed adjustment apparatus to be capable of adjusting the spread angle depending on transverse wind loads due to cross winds.
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, 5-7, 10-11, 15-20, 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) 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 …”).
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 20-23) 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 …”).
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.
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, 5-7, 10-11 and 15-22 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) which carries a jib (11), from which a hoisting cable (considered the cable of block 13) runs off, wherein the tower of 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, and 26), 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.
Regarding claims 5-7, Verchere discloses a bracing tensioner (26 and 28, see figure 2). Verchere does not disclose multiple tensioners.
Nakamura discloses a mobile crane (see figures 4-5) comprising a multiple tensioners (22, see figures 1-2). Verchere further shows the lower end of the tensioner connected to a revolving platform or supporting platform (see figure 2).
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).
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.
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 tower is configured to be tiltable (see figure 1) and/or telescopic and/or the jib is foldable against the tower.
Regarding claim 17, Verchere further shows the tower crane of claim 16, an undercarriage suitable for road transport (see figures 1-2), wherein the tower and the jib are erectably mounted on the undercarriage (see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, 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 125% to 500% 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 125% to 500% 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 125% to 500% 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 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).
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. 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 19, 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 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).
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 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) which carries a jib (11), from which a hoisting cable (considered the cable of block 13) runs off, wherein the tower of 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, and 26), 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.
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) which carries a jib (11), from which a hoisting cable (considered the cable of block 13) runs off, wherein the tower of 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, and 26), 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 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, 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 and determines a spread angle β of the at least one pair of guy supports articulated on the tower, and the adjustment apparatus comprises a hydraulic cylinder for motorized spreading out of the guy supports.
Further, with the modification above, the adjustment apparatus is configured to allow for adjustment of the spread angle when the crane is ready for operation (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), and the adjustment apparatus is configured to adjust the spread angle depending on transverse wind loads due to cross winds (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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 17, 2026 (see Remarks Rem of 04/17/2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“However, the guying system is "traditional" and thus, Verchere confirms the skilled persons' prejudice that tower cranes of this type should not have any lateral spread in the guying system as taking up vertical loads onto the jib and thus, taking up bending of the tower in the vertical central crane plane (i.e., the vertical plane going through the tower and the jib) is of utmost importance.”, see page 3 lines 25-29 of the Remarks.
The Examiner does not respectfully agree because the use of the word “traditional” does not teach away from using V-shaped guy supports on Verchere.
Applicant argues:
“Accordingly, there are no two guide ropes spaced from each other in transverse direction and, thus, there is no spread in the guying system to take up lateral forces onto the tower. The guy supports 15 and 30 do not have any spread and do not have any V-shape, but are only a single rod or pole extending exactly in the crane's center plane (see Fig. 2). Thus, Verchere leads away from any spread, 3-dimensional guying system and does not give any hint to V-shaped guying supports or guying cables spaced apart from each other in transverse direction to take up lateral loads onto the tower. Further, even when combining all of Verchere, Nakamura and Takura, there is no variation showing a spread-out, V-shaped guying support positioned in the lower third of the tower.”, see page 4 lines 10-19 of the Remarks.
The argument is not commensurate with the scope of the current rejections because Nakamura is relied upon for V-shaped guy supports.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights