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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 10-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Landry (US Patent 5,586,667).
Regarding claim 1, Landry discloses a mobile crane with main and auxiliary counterweight assemblies comprising:
A vehicle crane (220, see figures 6-12) comprising:
a superstructure (224 and 228) that is rotatably mounted on a lower carriage (222, see figures 6-12) and has a telescopic main jib (226, see figures 6-12), wherein the superstructure consists of a base superstructure (224) and an attachment superstructure (228) arranged in a detachable manner (see figure 8) thereon and the attachment superstructure receives at least one main counterweight (230, see figures 6 and 11); and
wherein at least one auxiliary support (268) configured as a hinged support (see figures 6 and 11) is fastened to the attachment superstructure (see figures 6 and 11), wherein only compressive forces and no bending moments are introduced into the attachment superstructure via the at least one auxiliary support (As the auxiliary support 268 is moved from its lowest position in figure 6 to its highest position in figure 11, the auxiliary swings on a pivot 292. As the auxiliary support swings on pivot 292, the support will introduce only compressive forces and not introduce bending moments, similar to the structure of the claimed invention. For example, swinging the auxiliary support from its lowest position to its highest position slowly would introduce compressive forces and not introduce bending moments. The above also applies to the reverse swinging movement of the auxiliary support), and wherein a rear end of the auxiliary support is suspended via a guying member (one of 262 or 234), and an auxiliary counterweight (232, see figures 6 and 11) is suspended from the rear end of the at least one auxiliary support (see figure 11).
Regarding claim 2, Landry further shows wherein the at least one auxiliary support (268) is fastened in an articulated manner (see figures 6 and 11) to the attachment superstructure.
Regarding claim 10, Landry further shows wherein at least one rigging cylinder (270, see figures 6 and 11) is arranged on the attachment superstructure and the attachment superstructure can be raised from the rigging position (figure 6) to the attachment position (figure 11) via said rigging cylinder.
Regarding claim 11, Landry further shows wherein the at least one main counterweight (230) is stationary relative to the base superstructure during operation of the vehicle crane (see figures 6 and 11).
Regarding claim 12, Landry further shows wherein a first (230) and a second main counterweight (232) are provided that are arranged opposite and spaced apart from one another in relation to a longitudinal direction (see figures 6 and 11) of the attachment superstructure.
Regarding claim 13, Landry further shows wherein at least one lifting mechanism (280, see figures 6 and 11) and/or winch mechanism (280, see figures 6 and 11) are arranged on the attachment superstructure (see figures 6 and 11).
Regarding claim 16, Landry further shows wherein the base superstructure (224) has no counterweight (see figures 6 and 11).
Regarding claim 17, Landry further shows wherein the lower carriage (222) is provided with wheels for travel on roads (column 8 lines 40-51, as the base 222 is mounted on wheels).
Regarding claim 18, Landry further shows wherein the rear end of the at least one auxiliary support (268) is suspended via the guying member (one of 262 or 234) on the main jib (see figures 6 and 11) and/or on an auxiliary jib and/or on an adapter at a main jib head.
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 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landry (US Patent 5,586,667).
Regarding claim 3, Landry discloses the claimed invention except for the at least one auxiliary support can be pivoted by an angle of 40 degrees to 130 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the at least one auxiliary support can be pivoted by an angle of 40 degrees to 130 degrees, 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 at least one auxiliary support can be pivoted by an angle of 40 degrees to 130 degrees is a result-effective range because the recognized result would be to provide for the lifting of the auxiliary counterweight (see figures 6 and 11 of Landry). Further, the result expected by one of ordinary skill in the art would be to provide a range of movement of the auxiliary counterweight (see figures 6 and 11 of Landry) to compensate for the range of movement of a load supported by the telescopic main jib (226).
The difference between the claimed invention of dependent claim 3 and the prior art of Landry is the at least one auxiliary support can be pivoted by an angle of 40 degrees to 130 degrees. 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 5, Landry discloses the claimed invention except for the at least one auxiliary support is at least 3 m long.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the at least one auxiliary support is at least 3 m long, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F .2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The at least one auxiliary support is at least 3 m long is a result-effective optimum value because the recognized result would be to provide for the lifting of the auxiliary counterweight (see figures 6 and 11 of Landry). Further, the result expected by one of ordinary skill in the art would be to provide a range of movement of the auxiliary counterweight (see figures 6 and 11 of Landry) to compensate for the range of movement of a load supported by the telescopic main jib (226).
The difference between the claimed invention of dependent claim 5 and the prior art of Landry is the at least one auxiliary support is at least 3 m long. The discovering of an optimum value of a result effective optimum value would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 15, 2025 (see Remarks REM of 10/15/2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue:
“Landry does not use, disclose or suggest an auxiliary support acting as a hinged support or pendulum support. Such a support in the sense of the invention would not be stable and could not carry any load without being suspended at its rear end. Accordingly, the hinged support of the present application introduces only compressive forces and no bending moments into the attachment superstructure.”
“In contrast, the structure of Landry, due to its bilateral mounting, forms a bending beam which remains functional even without suspension. This structural difference is significant, as it has direct consequences for weight, component dimensioning and assembly logic.”
See page 3 last 5 lines to page 4 lines 1-14.
The Examiner respectfully does not agree for the following reason(s).
First, as the auxiliary support 268 of Landry is moved from its lowest position in figure 6 to its highest position in figure 11, the auxiliary swings on a pivot 292. As the auxiliary support swings on pivot 292, the support will introduce only compressive forces and not introduce bending moments, similar to the structure of the claimed invention. For example, swinging the auxiliary support from its lowest position to its highest position slowly would introduce compressive forces and not introduce bending moments. The above also applies to the reverse swinging movement of the auxiliary support.
Second, Applicants argue that Landry does not disclose or suggest the limitation of the auxiliary supports introduce only compressive forces and not introduce bending moments with respect to the present invention. However, Applicants do not appear to identify the structural differences between the claimed auxiliary support and the auxiliary support of Landry. As both auxiliary supports swing along a pivot axis, both the auxiliary supports of the invention and Landry appear to introduce only compressive forces and not introduce bending moments.
How does the structure of the claimed auxiliary support introduce only compressive forces and not introduce bending moments? How does the structure of Landry introduce bending moments into the attachment superstructure (228)? The arguments on page 4 lines 1-14 do not appear to clearly point out how Landry introduces bending moments into the attachment superstructure.
Third, Applicants argue that Landry does not disclose or suggest the limitation of the auxiliary supports introduce only compressive forces and not introduce bending moments because Landry has a bilateral mounting. However, the present application appears to also have a bilateral mounting.
As shown in at least figure 2, the attachment superstructure (8) appears to have a bilateral mounting because it is mounted 1) to the base superstructure (6) on the right side of the attachment superstructure and 2) at least one auxiliary support (15a and/or 15b) on the left side of the attachment superstructure.
Alternatively, as shown in at least figure 2, the attachment superstructure (8) appears to have a bilateral mounting because it is mounted the base superstructure (6) at 3rd connecting point (8a) and at 4th connecting point (8b). How does the present invention not comprise a bilateral mounting?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-22 are allowed.
Claims 4, 6-9, and 14-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Landry (US Patent 5,586,667) is considered the closest prior art reference to the invention of independent claim 19.
Claim 19 claims:
A method for rigging a vehicle crane, wherein the vehicle crane comprises a superstructure that is rotatably mounted on a lower carriage and has a telescopic main jib, wherein the superstructure consists of a base superstructure and an attachment superstructure arranged in a detachable manner thereon and the attachment superstructure receives at least one main counterweight, said method comprising:
placing at least one auxiliary support in a rigging position on the lower carriage;
fastening the at least one auxiliary support to the attachment superstructure;
guying a rear end of the at least one auxiliary support via a guying member on a main jib head and/or on
an adjoining adapter or an auxiliary jib; and
suspending the auxiliary counterweight from the rear end of the at least one auxiliary support;
wherein the at least one auxiliary support is configured as a hinged support with the rear end of the at least one auxiliary support being suspended via the guying member.
Important Note: Underlining is provided to point out important area of the bolded limitation above.
Landry does not disclose nor would be obvious to the limitation of the method step of “placing at least one auxiliary support in a rigging position on the lower carriage”, in conjunction with the remaining limitations of independent claim 19.
Dependent claims 20-22 depends on claim 19.
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