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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “172” (see page 11 lines 9-10, see recitations of “a cable” in claims 1, 10, and 19, as reference number “172” is not shown in any of the figures). 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. 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 § 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 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boily (US Patent 7,213,715 B2) in view of Lopez (US Patent 9,156,664 B1), and in further view of Rigour (FR 2,762,832 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Boily discloses a Hoisting Apparatus For Use At A Manhole (see figures 1-4, especially figure 1) comprising:
a vertical post (20, see figure 1, as 20 is at least partially vertical) extending upwardly therefrom (see figure 1),
a boom (18, see figure 1) projecting out from a top portion of the vertical post (see figure 1), the boom having a distal end (considered the uppermost end of 18, see figure 1) positionable (see figure 1, as 18 is telescopically received inside of 20 as discussed in column 4 lines 13-19) above a hatch (1, see figure 1, as the manhole a similar opening to that of a hatch), wherein no part of the rooftop crane constricts access to the hatch (see figure 1, or alternatively when 18 is retracted no part of the crane constricts access to the manhole/hatch 1), and
an attachment bracket (23, see figure 1) configured to secure the vertical post (20) to a railing system (12, 40, 42, 44, and 48, see figure 1) surrounding a hatch (1, see figure 1).
Boily does not explicitly disclose 1) a planar platform, 2) at least two attachment brackets, and 3) wherein the planar platform is positioned outside a perimeter of the railing system.
Lopez discloses pinata hanging and swinging apparatus (see figures 1-4, especially figure 1) comprising a crane (see figures 1-4, especially figure 1) comprising a planar platform (110, see figure 1), a vertical post (108, see figure 1) extending upwardly therefrom, a boom (101, see figure 1) projecting out from a top portion of the vertical post (see figure 1), the boom having a distal end (see figure 1) that is positionable (see direction of 108A in figure 1). Lopez teaches that the shape of the platform (110) is such that an end user can stand on the platform when articulating the boom (see column 3 lines 45-48).
Regarding #1 and #3, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Boily (which includes the railing system) by substituting the crane of Lopez for the crane (18 and 20) of Boily, to provide a platform of a crane of a shape such that an end user can stand on the platform when articulating the boom as taught by Lopez, as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
With the modification above of Boily in view of Lopez, the planar platform is positioned outside a perimeter of the railing system.
Neither Boily nor Lopez disclose at least two attachment brackets configured to secure the vertical post to a railing system.
Rigour discloses a rotatable, mountable, and pliable loading mast (see figures 1-4, especially figure 1) and teaches of fixing a vertical shaft (1, see figure 1) of the loading/lifting mast (see figure 1) against horizontal rails (15, see figure 1, i.e. railing system) using at least two attachment brackets (35 and corresponding counter-plates, see figure 1), to fix the vertical shaft of a loading/lifting mast against horizontal rails of a rail (see attached machine translation page 3 paragraph 0008 lines 3-9).
Regarding #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 apparatus of Boily as modified by Lopez by providing the vertical post of the crane with at least two attachment brackets, to fix the vertical shaft of a loading/lifting mast against horizontal rails as taught by Rigour, to fix the vertical post of the crane to at least one horizontal rail near the crane for the benefit of using the structure of the at least one horizontal rail to provide extra structural support for crane during load lifting/lowering operations, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Boily as modified by Lopez and Rigour is obvious to the claimed invention except for the distal end of the boom is between 80 and 115 inches above a hatch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the distal end of the boom being between 80 and 115 inches above the hatch, 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 distal end of the boom being between 80 and 115 inches above the hatch is a result-effective range because the recognized result would be to provide a height of of the distal end of the boom high enough (above ground structure, such the ground, a hatch, or a manhole) so that a load can be lifted and then slewed without the load contacting ground structure.
The difference between the claimed invention of dependent claim 17 and the prior arts of Boily as modified by Lopez and Rigour is the boom being between 80 and 115 inches above a hatch. The discovering of an optimum range of a result effective range would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boily (US Patent 7,213,715 B2) in view of Lopez (US Patent 9,156,664 B1), in further view of Rigour (FR 2,762,832 A1) as applied to claims 15 and 17 above, and further in view of Napieralski et al. (US Patent 11,142,436 B1).
Regarding claim 16, None of Boily, Lopez, nor Rigour disclose wherein the vertical post comprises a handle configured to rotate the post about a central, the rotation of which controls a position of the distal end of the boom.
Napieralski discloses a crane (see figures 1-6, especially figures 1-2) comprising a vertical post (6, see figure 1) extending upwardly therefrom (see figure 1), and a boom (8, see figure 1) projecting out from a top portion (see figure 1) of the vertical post.
Napieralski teaches wherein the vertical post (6) comprises a handle (considered the handle attached to angle adjuster 20, see figure 1) configured to rotate the post about a central, the rotation of which controls a position of the distal end of the boom (see column 4 lines 39-42).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Boily as modified by Lopez and Rigour by providing the vertical post with a handle configured to rotate the post about a central, the rotation of which controls a position of the distal end of the boom, to provide a vertical post of a crane with a handle (connected to the post) to rotate the post as taught by Napieralski, to provide a backup secondary handle to rotate the boom in the event that the handle on the boom breaks during operation of the crane, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boily (US Patent 7,213,715 B2) in view of Lopez (US Patent 9,156,664 B1), in further view of Rigour (FR 2,762,832 A1) as applied to claims 15 and 17 above, and further in view of Barnett (US Publication 2005/0224289 A1).
Regarding claims 18-19, None of Boily, Lopez, nor Rigour disclose wherein a winching mechanism is affixed to the vertical post.
Barnett discloses a flange mounted load transition apparatus and method (see figures 1-42, especially figure 1) and teaches of affixing a winching mechanism (60, see figure 1) to a vertical post (12, see figure 1) of a crane (see paragraph 0060). Barnett further discloses wherein a cable (61, see figure 1), by way of a pulley (62, see figure 1), extends from the winching mechanism to the distal end of the boom (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 apparatus of Boily as modified by Lopez and Rigour by providing a winching system (including the winching mechanism, cable, and pulley), affixing the winching mechanism to the vertical post of the crane, and affixing the pulley to the distal end of the boom, to affix a winching mechanism to a vertical post of the crane and to affix a pulley to the distal end of the boom as taught by Barnett, to reduce the manual labor needed to operate the crane of Boily as modified by Lopez and Rigour by using a winching system to lift the load compared to pulling the load by hand, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
With the modification above of Boily in view of Lopez, Rigour, and Barnett, the winching mechanism is configured to raise or lower a payload, regarding claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to previous claims 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (see rejections using newly cited references of Boily and Lopez) does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 13-14 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Boily (US Patent 7,213,715 B2), Lopez (US Patent 9,156,664 B1), Rigour (FR 2,762,832 A1), Napieralski et al. (US Patent 11,142,436 B1), Barnett (US Publication 2005/0224289 A1), Toohey (Construction Canada NPL), and Manning (US Patent 4,560,074) are considered the closest prior art references to the claimed invention of independent claims 1 and 10.
Claim 1 claims:
A portable crane for removable attachment to a safety rail system, the portable crane comprising:
a planar ballast platform configured to lay on a roof, the planar ballast platform comprising a first guide rail attachment bracket for coupling to a lower side guide rail of the safety rail system;
a first pair of U-bolts for removably attaching the first guide rail attachment bracket to the lower side guide rail;
a vertical post member extending upwardly from the planar ballast platform adjacent to the first guide rail attachment bracket, the vertical post member including a top portion opposite a bottom portion, wherein the bottom portion is affixed to the planar ballast platform;
a second guide rail attachment bracket defining a generally L-shaped profile including a first leg for coupling to an upper side guide rail of the safety rail system and a second leg defining an aperture through which the vertical post member passes;
a second pair of U-bolts for removably attaching the second guide rail attachment bracket to the upper side guide rail;
an upper arm member having a first end affixed to the top portion of the vertical post member at an angular attachment portion and a second end for extending over a roof access hatch to define an obtuse angle between the upper arm member and vertical post member
a hook pulley attached to the second end of the upper arm member;
a guide pulley affixed to the angular portion;
a winching mechanism comprising a spool and a handle; and
a cable.
Important Note: Underlining is provided to point out the important areas of the bolded limitations above.
None of Boily, Lopez, Rigour, Napieralski et al., Barnett, Toohey, nor Manning disclose nor would be obvious to the limitation(s) of 1) “a planar ballast platform configured to lay on a roof, the planar ballast platform comprising a first guide rail attachment bracket for coupling to a lower side guide rail of the safety rail system”, 2) “a first pair of U-bolts for removably attaching the first guide rail attachment bracket to the lower side guide rail”, 3) “a second guide rail attachment bracket defining a generally L-shaped profile including a first leg for coupling to an upper side guide rail of the safety rail system and a second leg defining an aperture through which the vertical post member passes”, and 4) “a second pair of U-bolts for removably attaching the second guide rail attachment bracket to the upper side guide rail”, in conjunction with the remaining limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 10 claims:
A method of using a portable crane comprising:
providing a portable crane in a disassembled configuration;
transporting the portable crane to a rooftop;
assembling the portable crane; and
securing the portable crane to a safety rail system surrounding a roof hatch,
wherein the portable crane comprises a planar ballast platform, a vertical post member,
an upper arm member, a winching mechanism, a cable, a guide pulley, a hook pulley,
and a hook,
wherein the safety rail system comprises a lower side guide rail and an upper side guide rail;
the portable crane comprises a first guide rail attachment bracket and a second guide rail attachment bracket; and
the step of affixing the portable crane to the safety rail system comprises:
securing the first guide rail attachment bracket to the lower side guide rail with a first pair of U-bolts; and
securing the second rail attachment bracket to the upper side guide rail with a second pair of U-bolts.
None of Boily, Lopez, Rigour, Napieralski et al., Barnett, Toohey, nor Manning disclose nor would be obvious to the limitation(s) of a method of 1) “the portable crane comprises a first guide rail attachment bracket and a second guide rail attachment bracket”, 2) “securing the first guide rail attachment bracket to the lower side guide rail with a first pair of U-bolts”, and 3) “securing the second rail attachment bracket to the upper side guide rail with a second pair of U-bolts”, in conjunction with the remaining limitations of independent claim 10.
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
Prosecution Insights