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 § 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwagerman (US Patent 4,596,336) in view of Prins (US Publication 2019/0176938 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zwagerman discloses a mobile crane (see figures 1-7, especially figure 2) comprising:
A crane (see figures 1-7, especially figure 2) comprising:
a main boom (13a, see figure 2) having a first end portion (considered the end portion of 13a closest to sheaves 17 and 18 in figure 2) and a second end portion (considered the end portion of 13a closest to sheave 14, see figure 2), and being supported by a support structure (10 and 4, see figure 2) via a hinged connection (considered the hinge connection at pivot shaft 12, see figure 2) whereby the main boom is pivotable in a vertical plane (as the boom pivoting about pivot shaft 12 pivots in a vertical plane); and
a pivoting assembly (8, 14, 15, and 19, see figure 2) arranged below the main boom (see figure 2), wherein the pivoting assembly comprises a winch assembly (8, see figure 2), a sheave assembly (one of sheaves 14 or 15, see figure 2), and one or more drive wires (19, see figure 2) extending between the winch assembly and the sheave assembly (see figure 2).
Zwagerman does not explicitly the winch assembly is an electric motor-and-winch assembly.
Prins discloses a system to transfer people and/or cargo during offshore operations (see figures 1-2) and teaches of providing an electric motor-and-winch assembly (63, 63a, and 63b, as the winches are electrically driven as discussed in paragraph 0102) to rotate a boom (30, see figure 1) relative to a support (20, see figure 1).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Zwagerman by substituting the electric motor winch assembly of Prins for the winch assembly of Zwagerman, to rotate a boom relative a support as taught by Prins, to reduce pollution as an electric motor-and-winch assembly emits less pollution than a gas or oil powered winch assembly, and/or as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Zwagerman further shows wherein the winch assembly is arranged on an end portion of the main boom, and the sheave assembly is arranged on the support structure , or vice versa (as a sheave assembly 14 is arranged at end portion 13a, and the winch assembly 8 is arranged on the support structure 4, see figure 2) .
Claims 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwagerman (US Patent 4,596,336) in view of Prins (US Publication 2019/0176938 A1) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Ronge (EP 0,949,184 A2).
Regarding claim 3, Zwagerman further shows a secondary boom (considered the boom that is extendible and retractable relative to 13a, see figure 2 and column 2 lines 33-37) which is slidably connected to the main boom and arranged for translatory motion with respect to the main boom.
Neither Zwagerman nor Prins explicitly disclose one or more power-and-transmission units connected to the main boom, wherein a power-and-transmission unit comprises a drive unit operatively connected to a first gear; at least a portion of the secondary boom comprising a second gear; and the first and second gears are dimensioned and configured for gripping engagement, whereby operation of the drive unit causes the secondary boom to move with respect to the main boom.
Ronge discloses a transport device (see figures 1-9, especially figures 3-4) comprising one or more power-and-transmission units (M, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 450, see figures 3-4) connected to a main boom (25, see figures 3-4), wherein a power-and-transmission unit comprises a drive unit (M, see figures 3-4) operatively connected to a first gear (31 and 36, see figures 3-4); at least a portion of the secondary boom (26 and 27, see figures 3-4) comprising a second gear (37 and 38, see figures 3-4); and the first and second gears are dimensioned and configured for gripping engagement (as gear 36 engages gear 37, see paragraph 0013 of Applicant provided machine translation), whereby operation of the drive unit causes the secondary boom to move with respect to the main boom (as 26 is extended and retracted, see paragraph 0013 of Applicant provided machine translation), to adjust the length of the boom by use of a motor (see paragraph 0013 of Applicant 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 crane of Zwagerman and Prins by adding the one or more power-and-transmission units as taught by Ronge between the main boom and the secondary boom, to adjust the length of the boom by use of a motor as taught by Ronge, to use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, and/or to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Zwagerman further shows wherein the secondary boom (considered the boom that is extendible and retractable relative to 13a, see figure 2 and column 2 lines 33-37) is slidably arranged inside at least a portion of the main boom.
Regarding claim 7, Zwagerman further shows a pedestal (1, see figure 2) having a slewing mechanism (considered the slewing mechanism of turntable 3, see figure 2) to which the support structure (10 and 4, see figure 2) is rotatably connected.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwagerman (US Patent 4,596,336) in view of Prins (US Publication 2019/0176938 A1) in further view of Ronge (EP 0,949,184 A2) as applied to claims 1-3 and 6-7 above, and further in view of Sturm, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,026,970).
Regarding claim 4, None of Zwagerman, Prins, nor Ronge disclose the drive unit is an electric motor.
Sturm, Jr. et al. (from here on just referred to as Sturm) discloses a telescopic tube assembly (see figures 1-6, especially figure 1) and teaches of providing an electric motor as the drive motor to cause extension or retraction of the boom sections 14 and 16 (see figures 1-6, column 3 lines 31-38, and claim 2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Zwagerman as modified above by substituting an electric motor as the drive unit as taught by Sturm for the drive unit of Ronge, to utilize an electric motor as a drive unit to cause extension or retraction of the boom sections as taught by Sturm, and/or as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwagerman (US Patent 4,596,336) in view of Prins (US Publication 2019/0176938 A1) in further view of Ronge (EP 0,949,184 A2) as applied to claims 1-3 and 6-7 above, and further in view of Geir (GB 1,550,072).
Regarding claim 5, None of Zwagerman, Prins, nor Ronge disclose the wherein the first gear is a circular gear and the second gear is a linear gear.
Geir discloses a telescopic boom (see figures 1-4, especially figure 1) comprising a first boom section (3) and a second boom section (4) telescopically moved by a transmission unit (see page 2 lines 3-65, and figures 1-4 especially figure 1) comprising a first circular gear (7, see figure 1) and a second linear gear (6, see figure 1) and teaches of providing the first circular gear and second linear gear to provide a uniform pushing force outwardly and the same pulling force inwardly and for any given constructional dimensions, has a larger capacity than known telescopic booms (see page 1 lines 69-75).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Zwagerman as modified above by substituting the first circular gear and second linear gear of Geir for the gearing of Zwagerman as modified above, to provide a uniform pushing force outwardly and the same pulling force inwardly and for any given constructional dimensions, has a larger capacity than known telescopic booms as taught by Geir, and/or as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwagerman (US Patent 4,596,336) in view of Prins (US Publication 2019/0176938 A1) in further view of Ronge (EP 0,949,184 A2) as applied to claims 1-3 and 6-7 above, and further in view of Stegemann et al (US Patent 8,104,631 B2).
Regarding claim 8, None of Zwagerman, Prins, nor Ronge disclose a main winch arranged on the secondary boom.
Stegemann et al. (from here on just referred to as Stegemann) discloses a portable crane system for wind turbine components (see figures 1-14, especially figure 4) and teaches of providing a main winch (305) arranged on a secondary boom (323) of a crane (300, see figure 4) to lift load components (see column 5 line 53 to column 6 line 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 crane of Zwagerman, Prins, and Ronge by arranging the main winch on the secondary boom, to lift load components with a main winch on a secondary boom as taught by Stegemann, to use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, and/or to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwagerman (US Patent 4,596,336) in view of Prins (US Publication 2019/0176938 A1) in view of Ronge (EP 0,949,184 A2) in further view of Stegemann et al (US Patent 8,104,631 B2) as applied to claims 1-3 and 6-8 above, and further in view of Vestre (US Publication 2016/0152451 A1).
Regarding claim 9, None of Zwagerman, Prins, Ronge, nor Stegemann disclose the main winch comprising an electric motor.
Vestre discloses a hybrid crane (see figures 1-12, especially figure 2) and teaches of providing a winch (5) with a hybrid hydraulic-electric motor (see paragraphs 0155-0160) to provide hydraulic motors for load holding and to provide electric motors for speed and acceleration (see paragraphs 0155-0160).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Zwagerman, Prins, Ronge, and Stegemann by providing an electric motor as the motor for the main winch, to provide hydraulic motors for load holding and to provide electric motors for speed and acceleration, as taught by Vestre, to use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, and/or to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
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, Anna M. Momper can be reached on phone number 571-270-5788. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJC/
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654