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 .
Specification
The amendments to the Specification of December 23, 2025 (see SPEC of 12/23/2025) have been considered and are not entered. The amendments to the Specification have not been entered because of objections associated with the amendments.
The proposed amendments to paragraphs 0037-0039 appear to define the bracing frame, the boom, and the traction element with new values of 44-46, without making the changes to the rest of the Specification. Thus, the proposed amendments to paragraphs 0037-0039 are objected to by the Examiner.
Did Applicants mean to amend the Specification by providing numeral 44 as a sensor for detecting the angular position of the bracing frame? Did Applicants mean to amend the Specification by providing numeral 45 as a sensor for detecting the angular position of the boom? Did Applicants mean to amend the Specification by providing numeral 46 as a sensor for detecting the tractive force applied by the traction element?
Drawings
The amendments to the Drawings of December 23, 2025 (see DRW of 12/23/2025) have not been entered for the same reason(s) as discussed above regarding the amendments to the Specification.
The Examiner also points out that neither the proposed amendments to the Specification nor the proposed amendments to the Drawings address the drawing objection of “a sensor for detecting a position and/or a length of the traction element” (of claim 12) not being shown in the drawings.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a sensor for detecting an angular position of the bracing frame” (claim 12), “a sensor for detecting an angular position of the boom” (claim 12), “a sensor for detecting the tractive force applied by the traction element” (claim 12), and “a sensor for detecting a position and/or a length of the traction element” (claim 12) 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 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 1-3, 6-9, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Holly (US Publication 2020/0276292 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Holly discloses a cylinder retention device (see figures 1-11, especially figures 1-4) comprising:
A crane (10, see figure 1), having an upper carriage (20), a tiltable boom (22) articulated to the upper carriage and a tiltable bracing frame (28, see figures 2-3) articulated to the upper carriage, wherein the bracing frame can be connected to the boom via a bracing (37, see figure 1), wherein the bracing frame is connected to the upper carriage via an actively adjustable bracing cabling (considered the cabling and winch of rigging 30), which comprises a bracing cable (considered the cabling of rigging 30) mounted on a cable winch (considered the winch of rigging 30) so that the cable can be wound up and unwound,
comprising
a variable-length traction element (36, the triangular plate connected to 36, and two cables connected to the triangular plate, see figures 2-4), via which the bracing frame is connected to the boom in an articulated manner and which is configured to exert a tractive force (considered the force on the bracing frame when cylinder 36 lifts the boom, and/or see paragraph 0039) on the bracing frame in the direction of the boom, wherein the variable-length traction element (36, the triangular plate connected to 36, and two cables connected to the triangular plate, see figures 2-4) is coupled between the bracing frame and the boom (see figure 3, as the cables of the traction element are connected to the pivotal end of the boom).
Regarding claim 2, Holly further shows wherein the traction element is connected in an articulated manner to the bracing frame (as the traction element pivots with respect to the bracing frame when the bracing lifts the traction element) and has at least one connection means (considered the triangular plate connected to 36 and two cables connected to the triangular plate, see figures 2-4), via which the traction element is releasably connected (as the two cables are released when the boom is erected) in an articulated manner to the boom.
Regarding claim 3, Holly further shows comprising a traverse (considered the left cable of the two cables connected to the triangular plate), via which the traction element can be connected to a bolting point (considered the connection point of the left cable and the pivotal portion of the boom, see figure 3) in a lower region of the boom (see figure 3), wherein the bolting point is located on a linkage piece (considered the pivotal portion of the boom) articulated to the upper carriage (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Holly further shows wherein the traction element (36, the triangular plate connected to 36, and two cables connected to the triangular plate, see figures 2-4) is a separate element from the bracing, from the bracing frame and from the boom (see figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Holly further shows wherein the traction element is configured to be pulled apart when the bracing frame is pivoted away from the boom (as the cylinder of hydraulic cylinder 36 and the piston rod of the hydraulic cylinder 36 are pulled apart when the bracing frame is lifted and there little to no hydraulic pressure inside the hydraulic cylinder 36), wherein the traction element and the boom are configured such that the boom is not lifted while the traction element acts on the bracing frame (as the hydraulic cylinder is being pulled apart, and extended, the boom is not lifted).
Regarding claim 8, Holly further shows wherein the traction element passively adjustable in length (as the hydraulic cylinder is passively adjustable in length when there is little to no hydraulic pressure inside the hydraulic cylinder) and comprises a spring element (as the hydraulic cylinder 36 is considered a hydraulic spring element) and/or an elastic element.
Regarding claim 9, Holly further shows wherein the traction element is actively adjustable in length (as the hydraulic cylinder 36 is actively adjustable in length when hydraulic pressure is added to the hydraulic cylinder 36) and comprises an actuator (36) for extending and retracting the traction element, wherein the actuator is one of a hydraulic cylinder (as 36 is a hydraulic cylinder), a cable drive and a spindle drive.
Regarding claim 13, Holly further shows an undercarriage (14, see figure 1) having a crawler carrier (14), on which the upper carriage is rotatably mounted about a vertical axis of rotation (see figure 1), wherein the traction element comprises or represents a hydraulic cylinder (36, see figures 1-4) comprising a mounting cylinder (see figure 2) for mounting the crawler carrier (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, the method of operating the apparatus is well known and no new, non-obvious or improvement claims are described by the method claim since all elements of the Holly apparatus are disclosed in detail above.
Regarding claim 16, Holly further shows wherein the variable-length traction element (36, the triangular plate connected to 36, and two cables connected to the triangular plate, see figures 2-4) being coupled between the bracing frame and the boom includes a first end (considered the upper end of cylinder 36) of the variable-length traction element being coupled to the bracing frame (28) and a second end (considered at least one of the lower ends of at least one of the two cables, see figure 3) of the variable-length traction element being coupled to the boom (see figure 3).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Holly (US Publication 2020/0276292 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Holly further shows wherein the bracing comprises a first bracing line (considered bottom half of line shown in figure 1 connected to live mast 28) connected in an articulated manner to the bracing frame and a second bracing line (considered the top half of line shown in figure 1 connected to the tip of the boom 22)connected in an articulated manner to the boom, and wherein the first and/or second bracing line comprises at least one bracing rod (see figure 1).
Holly does not explicitly disclose the first and second bracing lines being detachable from one another via connection means and is connected in an articulated manner.
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 Holly by providing a detachable connection between the first and second bracing lines and the boom, to provide for easier disassembly of the crane for the benefit of making the crane easier to transport (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Holly (US Publication 2020/0276292 A1) in view of Bryan, Jr. (US Patent 4,166,542).
Regarding claim 5, Holly further shows wherein the bracing cable is guided over at least one deflection pulley (see figures 1-4) mounted on the bracing frame and over at least one deflection pulley (see figures 1-4) mounted on the upper carriage, wherein the cable winch is configured to pivot the bracing frame towards the rear of the upper carriage by winding up the bracing cable (see figures 1-4) and thereby to tilt up the boom coupled to the bracing frame via the bracing (see figures 1-4).
Holly does not explicitly disclose wherein the cable winch has a sinusoidal groove and is a single cable winch or double cable winch.
Bryan, Jr. teaches of providing grooves to a winch to allow for the cable to alternately wrapped around the winch (column 2 lines 3-6).
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 Holly by providing grooves the drums of Holly, to allow for the cable to alternately wrapped around the winch as taught by Bryan, Jr.
Claims 10-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Holly (US Publication 2020/0276292 A1) in view of Hamaguchi (US Patent 10,604,387 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Holly does not explicitly disclose wherein the actuator can be controlled and/or regulated via a control unit of the crane such that a constant or varying tractive force is applied to the bracing frame over time and/or over the pivot angle of the bracing frame, wherein the cable winch is controlled and/or regulated by the control unit.
Hamaguchi discloses a crane (see figures 1, 3, and 5) and teaches of an actuator (mid-support winch 25 or 25B, see figure 3 and 5) can be controlled and/or regulated via a control unit (50, see figure 3 and 5) of the crane such that a constant or varying tractive force (considered the varying tractive force of the tensional force T of the rope 28, see column 7 lines 1-46) is applied to the bracing frame over time and/or over the pivot angle of the bracing frame (see column 7 lines 1-46), wherein the cable winch (25 or 25B) is controlled and/or regulated by the control unit (see column 5 lines 62 to column 6 line 67), to allow a crane operator to adjust the warp degree of a boom to approximately zero (see column 7 lines 22-46).
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 Holly by adding and connecting a control unit to the actuator of Holly to vary the tractive force is applied to the bracing frame, to allow a crane operator to adjust the warp degree of a boom to approximately zero as taught by Hamaguchi.
Regarding claim 11, Holly does not explicitly disclose a measuring device connected to the control unit, by means of which the bracing force transmitted via the actuator is measured, wherein the control unit is configured to reduce the tractive force applied to the bracing frame via the traction element, to reduce the tractive force to zero if the measured bracing force exceeds a defined limit value, wherein the measuring device comprises at least one measuring sensor arranged on the bracing.
Hamaguchi discloses a crane (see figures 1, 3, and 5) and teaches of a measuring device (55, see figures 3 and 5) connected to the control unit, by means of which the bracing force transmitted via the actuator is measured (see column 6 lines 3-14), wherein the control unit is configured to reduce the tractive force applied to the bracing frame via the traction element (see column 7 lines 47-62), to reduce the tractive force to zero if the measured bracing force exceeds a defined limit value, wherein the measuring device comprises at least one measuring sensor (55) arranged on the bracing (as 55 is connected to 32 of the bracing), to allow the control unit adjust the warp degree of a boom to approximately zero as taught by Hamaguchi (see column 7 lines 47-62).
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 Holly by adding and connecting a measuring device to the control unit of Holly as modified above, to allow the control unit adjust the warp degree of a boom to approximately zero as taught by Hamaguchi.
Regarding claim 12, Holly does not explicitly disclose:
at least one of the following sensors connected to the control unit:
a sensor for detecting an angular position of the bracing frame,
a sensor for detecting an angular position of the boom,
a sensor for detecting the tractive force applied by the traction element,
a sensor for detecting a position and/or a length of the traction element,
wherein the control unit is configured, on the basis of the signals from the at least one sensor, to reduce the tractive force applied to the bracing frame via the traction element, to reduce the tractive force to zero, and/or to brake the cable winch.
Hamaguchi discloses a crane (see figures 1, 3, and 5) and teaches of a sensor for detecting the tractive force applied by the traction element (55, see figures 3 and 5) connected to the control unit, and the control unit is configured, on the basis of the signals from the at least one sensor (see column 7 lines 1-62), to reduce the tractive force applied to the bracing frame via the traction element, to reduce the tractive force to zero sensor (see column 7 lines 1-62), and/or to brake the cable winch.
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 Holly by adding and connecting a sensor for detecting the tractive force applied by the traction element to the control unit of Holly as modified above, to allow the control unit adjust the warp degree of a boom to approximately zero as taught by Hamaguchi.
Regarding claim 15, the method of operating the apparatus is obvious and no new, non-obvious or improvement claims are described by the method claim since all elements of the Holly in view of Hamaguchi apparatus are disclosed in detail above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 (see Remarks REM of 12/23/2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue:
“The Office currently relies upon element (36) of Holly to teach the claimed variable-length traction element. Element (36) of Holly is a linear actuator (e.g., a hydraulic cylinder) that swings free from the live mast (28) of the system to be used in assembly of the mobile crane (10). Thus, Holly fails to teach the claimed requirement of "the variable- length traction element is coupled between the bracing frame and the boom," in combination with the remaining features of amended claim 1. Moreover, Applicant submits one would not modify Holly to arrive at such claimed features. This is not least because the linear actuator of Holly is specifically configured to swing free from the live mast for purposes of its approach for assembling a mobile crane. Modifying Holly to instead include that "the variable-length traction element is coupled between the bracing frame and the boom" would break Holly for its intended functionality.”, see page 2 line 34 to page 3 line 5.
The Examiner respectfully does not agree for the following reason(s):
First, the argument is not commensurate with scope of the rejection because the variable-length traction element of Holly (see rejection of at least claim 1) comprises a cylinder (36), a triangular plate connected to 36, and two cables connected to the triangular plate, not only the cylinder element (36) as argued by the Applicant.
Second, as shown in figure 3 of Holly, the variable-length traction element of Holly is coupled between the bracing frame (28, see figure 3) and the boom (see the pivotal part of the boom in figure 3). The cylinder (36) of the variable-length traction element is coupled to the bracing frame (28) and at least one of the two cables of the variable-length traction element is coupled to the boom (see figure 3).
Third, paragraph 0070 of the Specification discloses that the traction element is designed as an actively adjustable hydraulic cylinder (31). Hydraulic cylinders are well known to comprise at least the two parts of a hydraulic cylinder portion and a piston rod (that extends out of the cylinder portion). Electric actuators, spindle drives, and cable drives similarly are well known for comprising at least two parts. Thus, the disclosed traction element is not composed of only one element.
Fourth, the variable-length traction element of Holly comprises the claimed structure of the claimed variable-length traction element. If Applicant does not agree, what claimed structure of the claimed variable-length traction element differs from the variable-length traction element of Holly.
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, Victoria P. Augustine can be reached on phone number (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 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/
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights