DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the claimed first, second, third, and fourth “attachment members” still invoke 35 USC 112(f) for the same reasons outlined in the Office Action of 09/15/25.
The claim term “electrical power take-off” is at issue. This term is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as outlined in MPEP 2111. There is no special definition of this term in the specification. As such, the prior art need only teach a mechanism which takes electrical power off of something else (e.g. a battery with generic “circuitry,” in claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0269288 (hereinafter “Hatch”).
Regarding claim 1 Hatch discloses a crane assembly comprising
a crane base (SB, see annotated figure below) arranged to be fixedly mounted to a vehicle (5),
a column (C) which is rotatably mounted to the crane base (SB) so as to be rotatable in relation to the crane base (SB) about an essentially vertical axis of rotation (see bearing structure in fig. 2) and a first actuator (A) for rotating the column (C) in relation to the crane base (SB), the crane assembly further comprises:
PNG
media_image1.png
1064
902
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a crane boom system comprising at least one liftable and lowerable crane boom (32) which is articulately connected to the column (C) and movable in relation to said column (C) by at least one second actuator (A2, see above), the crane base (SB) comprises a support arrangement comprising a stabilizer beam (21; see fig. 3) and two stabilizer legs (40), wherein the two stabilizer legs (40) are arranged to be extended from the stabilizer beam (21) and set to ground during operation of the crane boom system to support the stability of the vehicle (5) and crane assembly,
wherein said crane assembly further comprises
a battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31) comprising at least one battery cell (paragraph 31), and a battery circuitry unit provided with an electrical power take-off (i.e. without a power take-off the crane could not be operated; see paragraphs 30-31), and
a battery mounting assembly (70) structured to fixedly mount said battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31) to said crane base (SB), wherein said battery mounting assembly (70) comprises (is) at least one bracket member (outer casing of 70) adapted to the battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31) and provided with first attachment members (i.e. unshown support for batteries within 70) to attach said battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31) to said at least one bracket member (outer casing of 70), wherein said at least one bracket member (outer casing of 70) of the battery mounting assembly (70) is further provided with second attachment members (unshown fastener between 70 and 21; i.e. there must be welding, bolts, screws, etc. or 70 would fall off) to attach said battery mounting assembly (70) to the stabilizer beam (21), and wherein said battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31) is configured to electrically operate said first actuator (A) and said at least one second actuator (A2) via said electrical power take-off (see paragraph 31; i.e. all of the components can be electrically powered).
Regarding claim 2 Hatch discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein said battery mounting assembly (70) is structured to be mounted on (capable of being mounted on; i.e. this is a functional recitation) a three-point bridge of said crane base (SB) by third attachment members of said at least one bracket member (outer casing of 70), in addition to being attached to the stabilizer beam (21) by said second attachment members (unshown fastener between 70 and 21), such that the battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31) is mounted essentially on an upper surface of said three-point bridge (i.e. as the three point bridge appears to be functionally set forth in claim 2, it is argued that element 70 meets the requirements set forth therein).
Regarding claim 3 Hatch discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein said battery mounting assembly (70) is structured such that said battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31) is mounted in a vertical/standing orientation (see fig. 2) with regard to its (i.e. the battery arrangement’s) elongated extension.
Regarding claim 4 Hatch discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein said battery mounting assembly (70) is structured such that said battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31) is attached (either directly or indirectly) to the stabilizer beam (21) by said second attachment members (unshown fastener between 70 and 21; i.e. there must be welding, bolts, screws, etc. or 70 would fall off).
Regarding claim 5 Hatch discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein said battery mounting assembly (70) is structured such that said battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31) is mounted in a vertical/standing orientation (see fig. 2) with regard to an elongated extension of the battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31), and the battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31) is attached to the stabilizer beam (21) by said second attachment members (unshown fastener between 70 and 21; i.e. there must be welding, bolts, screws, etc. or 70 would fall off).
Regarding claim 7 Hatch discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein said crane boom (32) system comprises a first crane boom and a second crane boom (see extensible section of 32 in fig. 3), and wherein said battery mounting assembly (70) is structured to mount said battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31) on a side of the crane column (C) (left in fig. 2) where a crane tip of a crane boom (32) is positioned as the crane assembly is parked (e.g. as per fig. 2) and the crane is in a folded position, and without interfering with the crane during a folding procedure of the crane.
Regarding claim 10 Hatch discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein said actuators of the crane boom (32) system are electrically operated actuators by said battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31) via said electrical power take-off.
Regarding claim 11 Hatch discloses the above assembly, and further discloses a control unit (i.e. operator controls) configured to generate control signals capable of controlling the operation of the crane boom (32) system, wherein a three-dimensional virtual space (i.e. space just inside of 70, with batteries therein) is defined enclosing said battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31) and thereby providing a safety distance (i.e. 70 protects the batteries) around said battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31), and wherein said control unit (operator controls) is configured to control movements of the crane boom (32) system such that no part of the crane boom (32) system will move into said virtual space (i.e. space just inside of 70, with batteries therein).
Regarding claim 12 Hatch discloses the above assembly, and further discloses a combined hydraulic pump end electrical motor assembly (see paragraph 29), wherein the electrical motor of the combined assembly is configured to be connected to the battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31) and powered (paragraph 29) via the electrical power take-off of said battery arrangement (see paragraphs 30-31), and wherein the combined assembly (paragraph 29) is mounted to the stabilizer beam (21) by a fourth attachment member (50).
Regarding claim 13 Hatch discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein the combined assembly (paragraph 29) is mounted (at least indirectly) a vertical surface of the stabilizer beam (21) by the fourth attachment member (50).
Regarding claim 14 Hatch discloses the above assembly, and further discloses a vehicle (5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatch.
Regarding claim 8 Hatch discloses the above assembly. Hatch could reasonably be said to comprise either a bracket (70) or a housing (70), but fails to teach the combination of a bracket and the housing as set forth in claim 8. Hatch, however further teaches a bracket (26) and mountings (25) in conjunction with a battery housing (60; see paragraph 60) which completely encompasses batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the crane battery system (at 70) of Hatch with a housing, bracket, and mountings, as taught in the other battery housing of Hatch, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to more securely attach the battery system to the assembly.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatch in view of CN 106915691 A (hereinafter “Yuan”).
Regarding claim 9 Hatch discloses the above assembly, and further teaches wherein said actuators (A/A2) of the crane boom system are arranged to be operated by hydraulic fluid with a hydraulic flow (paragraph 25), the hydraulic fluid being discharged from a hydraulic pump (see paragraph 25); and powering the crane and/or other components with electricity (paragraphs 30-31). Hatch fails to specifically recite the variable working pressure, or that the hydraulic pump is electrically operated (although this would likely be the case in a system such as Hatch). Since Hatch already teaches running multiple components on electricity, including the crane, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to run the pump with electricity with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to run the pump with an already present power source.
Yuan teaches a similar crane assembly (see fig. 1), and further teaches moving the hydraulic cylinder thereof at a variable working pressure (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the oil cylinder of Hatch with a variable working pressure, as taught by Yuan, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better control the actuation of the cylinders.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (see pages 6-9) that the term “attachment member” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f). This is not persuasive. This claim term meets the three prong test set forth in MPEP 2181(I). Namely:
(1) the word “member” is a nonce word that could refer to a great number of disparate elements, and only derives specific meaning due to its use in the instant application. That is, void any special usage in the current specification, the term “member” could be used to reference a portion of any physical object, not just those shown in the specification.
(2) the nonce word “member” is modified only by functional language. That is, the member is for “attachment.” Notably, there are not “brackets,” “screws,” etc. claimed as part of the “attachment members.”
(3) No structural limitations are set forth in the claims as to what particulars are required in the “member.” The only definition is that the member is an “attachment” member.
This conclusion is supported by Applicant’s argument (see page 8, section “b”). Specifically, Applicant quotes portions of the instant specification in an effort to explain what the term means. The term “attachment member” can only be understood by ascertaining the specific way it is used in the specification (i.e. Applicant’s nonce usage of the word “member”), and has no intrinsic meaning of its own. Thus the term merits interpretation under 35 USC 112(f).
Notably, Applicant mentions “screws” and “brackets.” It is noted that these terms do not appear to invoke 35 USC 112(f) because they are structural terms which convey concrete (if broad) structure. Hence the term “battery mounting assembly” comprising a “bracket member” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant argues (pages 12-13, see “i”) that Hatch fails to teach a battery circuitry unit provided with an electrical power take-off. This argument is not persuasive. It appears that Applicant’s arguments are narrower than the claims. Namely, Hatch teaches (see paragraphs 30-31) that part of, or indeed the entire crane system of Hatch, could be powered by batteries. In order to do this, the power stored in the batteries would necessarily be “taken off” the battery bank, and delivered to the crane system. The only way this could take place is through some sort of wiring/circuitry. Under the broadest reasonably interpretation Hatch’s battery-powered crane reads on the limitation of “a battery circuitry unit provided with an electrical power take-off” at least because there are wires through which electrical power is changed into mechanical motion. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues (page 13, see “ii”) that Hatch fails to teach actuators being driven by electricity. This is not persuasive. Paragraph 31 or Hatch states that the entire service unit 10 can be electrically powered. As the service unit (10) comprises the crane (30), it is evident that the crane actuators would have to be driven via electricity. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues (pages 13-14, see “iii”) that Hatch fails to teach attachment members connecting element 70 to element 21. This is not persuasive. Element 70 is attached to the beam 21, even if it is not clear in what manner this attachment takes place. As the claim itself fails to define over the (unshown) attachment of Hatch, the claim limitation is met by Hatch. For example, claim 1 recites “a second attachment member” as providing this functionality, and the specification equates this with brackets or screws. It is argued that the attachment of Hatch 70 is at least an equivalent of brackets or screws since it performs the same function in a similar way. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues (page 14, see “iv”) that Hatch fails to teach “wherein said battery mounting assembly comprises at least one bracket member adapted to the battery arrangement and provided with first attachment members to attach said battery arrangement to said at least one bracket member.” This is not persuasive. Hatch’s battery mounting assembly (70) comprises a bracket because it is a bracket. Paragraphs 30-31 teach batteries within the battery mounting assembly (70). These batteries would necessarily be attached to element 70, at least by resting within the housing. This equates to at least an equivalent of a “first attachment member” (i.e. a screw, a bracket, or equivalents thereof). As the limitation fails to require more than the structure taught by Hatch, Hatch teaches the limitation.
Applicant argues (pages 14-15, “d”) that “Hatch is clearly not intended to operate crane 30 by electrical power from any battery arrangement…” This is not persuasive. Paragraphs 30-31 teach that the entire service unit (10) is operated by battery power.
Applicant argues (see page 15, first full paragraph) that an ePTO is conventional in electric vehicle cranes. This argument is not understood. Applicant is essentially saying that the traversed limitation is old and well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues (page 15) that it would not be obvious to make certain modifications to Hatch. As these modifications have not been proposed by the Office, and are moot.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Victoria P Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.L.A/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654