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 April 29, 2026 (see SPEC of 04/29/2026) have been reviewed and the amendments are accepted.
Drawings
The amendments to the drawings of April 29, 2026 (see DRW of 04/29/2026) have been reviewed and the amendments are accepted. The drawings objections of the Non-Final of December 29, 2025 (see CTNF of 12/29/2025, paragraph 0002) have been overcome.
Upon further review of the claims, 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, the following claimed limitations (see below) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The claimed limitations not shown are:
“the support element” (see claim 2 line 3)
“the means to transfer load” (see claim 2 line 4)
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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the support element” (line 3) lacks antecedent basis. No support element is claimed earlier in this claim. Nor is a support element claimed in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the support element will be interpreted as referring to the load block.
“the means to transfer load” (line 4) lacks antecedent basis. Did Applicant mean -means to transfer force to a cable-? For the purpose of examination, “the means to transfer load” will be interpreted as referring to the means to transfer force to a cable.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following limitation(s) will be interpreted under 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, sixth paragraph:
“means to transfer force to a cable” (claim 1 line 3).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, this claim claims “wherein the curved contour of the functional portion has an increasing curvature, the curvature increasing the further the curved contour deviates from a central axis of the support element, the central axis being defined by the center of the means to transfer load to the cable and by the center of the mounting interface”.
This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the boundaries of the increasing curvature are boundless. The claimed increasing curvature appears to increase to infinity. What are the boundaries of the claimed increasing curvature?
For the purpose of examination, the limitation of “wherein the curved contour of the functional portion has an increasing curvature, the curvature increasing the further the curved contour deviates from a central axis of the support element” will be interpreted as the curvature increasing from a central axis of the hook block to at least one of the sides of the hook block.
Please review all claims before the formal response is submitted, as any new 112(b) rejections introduced in the response may be grounds for a Final Rejection.
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, 4-5, 7-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPH 04117896 U (No inventor nor Applicant name is available).
Regarding claim 1, JPH 04117896 U (from here on just referred to as JPH 896’) discloses:
A device for reducing the hoisting force of a hydraulically driven winch of a mobile crane (see paragraph 0001 of the attached machine translation) comprising:
A load block (7, see figure 7) for a crane (a mobile crane, see paragraph 0001), the load block comprising:
a mounting interface (considered the bottom half of hook block 7) to attach a load to the load block (see figure 7),
means to transfer force (considered one of pulleys 10, see figure 7) to a cable (6, see figure 7), wherein a surface (considered the arcuate surface of the top half of the hook block as shown in figure 7) of the load block comprises a functional portion (considered the arcuate surface of the top half of the hook block as shown in figure 7) having a curved contour (considered the contour of the arcuate surface of the top half of the hook block as shown in figure 7) that causes a turning moment (see paragraph 0003 of the attached machine translation) on the load block if the functional portion of the surface engages an abutment (12, see figure 7).
Regarding claim 4, JPH 896’ further shows wherein the mounting interface (considered the bottom half of hook block 7) comprises a bore (considered the bore for 9, see figure 7, and see annotated figure below) configured to serve as a bearing (considered the bearing surface of the bore) for a bolt (9, see figure 7, and see annotated figure below) supporting a hook (see annotated figure below, and figure 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
778
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, JPH 896’ further shows a hook (see annotated figure above, and figure 7) attached to the mounting interface.
Regarding claim 7, JPH 896’ further shows wherein the load block exhibits one or more pulleys (a second of pulleys 10, and see paragraph 0002 of attached machine translation) for using the load block in a two-wire mode of operation (see figure 7) or in a multi-wire mode of operation.
Regarding claim 8, JPH 896’ further shows a bore (considered the bore of 11, see figure 7, and the annotated figure below) for a bolt (see figure 7, and see annotated figure below) to attach the wire (see figure 7).
PNG
media_image2.png
776
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, JPH 896’ further shows wherein the curved contour of the functional portion causes a turning moment on the load block if the functional portion of the support block is pushed towards a planar abutment (see paragraph 0003 of attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 12, JPH 896’ further shows wherein the functional portion comprises a protrusion (considered the arcuate surface of the top half of the hook block as shown in figure 7) for interacting with an abutment (12, see figure 7) of a boom (1, 2 and 12, see figure 7) of the crane, wherein the protrusion causes a turning moment of the load block with respect to the boom of the crane (see paragraph 0003 of attached machine translation).
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 2-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH 04117896 U (No inventor nor Applicant name is available).
Regarding claim 2, JPH 896’ further shows a central axis (considered a vertical axis passing vertically through pivot shaft 9, see annotated figure below) being defined by the center of the means to transfer load to the cable (see annotated figure below) and by the center of the mounting interface (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
794
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
JPH 896’ does not explicitly disclose wherein the curved contour of the functional portion has an increasing curvature, the curvature increasing the further the curved contour deviates from a central axis.
The difference between JPH 896’ and this claim is that JPH 896’ lacks an increasing curvature (i.e. a change of shape).
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 JPH 896’ by increasing the curvature of the arcuate surface of the top half of the hook block of JPH 896’ from the central axis of the hook block to at least one of the sides of the hook block (so that the arcuate surface has an increasing curvature), to increase the speed that the hook block turns into the underside of the boom when the winch (A) winds the wire rope, and/or as the configuration of the shape of the arcuate surface of the top half of the hook block of JPH 896’ is a matter of choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent evidence that the particular configuration of the shape was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
With the modification above, the functional portion of the surface extends until the central axis at the surface of the support block opposing the mounting interface, regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, JPH 896’ further shows a hook (see figure 7, and see the annotated figure in the rejection to claim 4) attached to the mounting interface (considered the bottom half of hook block 7)
JPH 896’ does not explicitly disclose the curvature increases in a direction of an open side of the hook. The difference between JPH 896’ as modified above and this claim is that the open side of the hook is not disclosed as being arranged or reversed to be in the same direction as the increase in curvature.
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 JPH 896’ as modified above by reversing the open side of the hook or by rearranging the open side of the hook (so that the open side of the hook is arranged in the same direction as the increase in curvature), to arrange the open side of the hook so that the open side of the hook is directed towards the boom when the hook block is placed toward the underside of the boom for the benefit of preventing injury of crane personnel as the personnel are not exposed to the open side of the hook during storage of the hook block, as a mere reversal of the direction of the open side of the hook (In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955)), and/or as the rearrangement of the open side of the hook would not have modified the operation of the hook (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH 04117896 U (No inventor nor Applicant name is available) in view of Gottwald (US Publication 2023/0159305 A1).
Regarding claim 9, JPH 896’ further shows:
the first part (considered the bottom half of hook block 7) comprising the mounting interface (considered the bottom half of hook block 7); and the second part (considered top half of hook block 7 as shown in figure 7) comprising the surface with the functional portion (considered the arcuate surface of the top half of the hook block as shown in figure 7) and the means to transfer force (considered one of pulleys 10, see figure 7) to the cable (6, see figure 7).
JPH 896’ does not explicitly disclose the load block comprises a first part and a separable second part.
Gottwald discloses a smart hook block (see figures 1-3, see especially figure 2) comprising a frame of the hook block (2, see figure 2) further comprising an upper hook part (2A, see figure 2) and a lower hook part (2B, see figure 2). Gottwald teaches that the lower hook part (2B) can be detachably connected to the upper hook part (2A) using four bolt connections (see paragraph 0053).
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 JPH 896’ by providing the first part of the load block separable from the second part of the load block, to provide a hook block where a lower hook part can be detachably connected to an upper hook part using bolt connections as taught by Gottwald, to provide a hook block where different lower hook parts can be attached to the upper hook part for the benefit of having the hook block adjustable in size for load of varying sizes, and/or to provide a hook block that has the second part separable from the first part for the benefit of changing the hook of the hook block without having to unreeve the cable from the hook block (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH 04117896 U (No inventor nor Applicant name is available) in view of Gottwald (US Publication 2023/0159305 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Vlazny (US Patent 3,786,935).
Regarding claim 10, JPH 896’ does not explicitly disclose wherein the first part comprises a fixed bolt to engage with a recess formed by the second part and a first bore serving as a bearing for a removable bolt; and wherein the second part comprises the recess to engage with the fixed bolt of the first part and a second bore serving as a bearing for the removable bolt.
Gottwald teaches of bolts that extend from both sides of the plates of an upper hook part and a lower hook part of a hook block (see figures 1-3, see especially figure 2).
Further regarding Gottwald, once these bolts and/or nuts of the hook block are secured, they’re “fixed”. While the drawings and specification of Gottwald don’t’ explicitly specify the orientation of the bolts and/or nuts (where the head vs. threading are), there are a finite number of options:
They have threading on both sides of the bolt as taught by Vlazny (US 3,786,935, see figures 5-6),
They have the heads on one plate and the nuts on the second,
They have some bolts with heads on one plate and some bolts with nuts on that plate.
The choice of one of a finite number of options, each yielding predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the option to include some bolts set with head/nut orientation opposite is a safety decision to reduce probability of the bolts and/or nuts becoming loose due to rotational directions being in opposition.
Therefore, 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 Miyazawa as modified by Gottwald above by providing the first part of the hook block to comprise a fixed bolt to engage with a recess formed by the second part of the hook block and a first bore serving as a bearing for a removable bolt; and wherein the second part of the hook block comprises the recess to engage with the fixed bolt of the first part and a second bore serving as a bearing for the removable bolt (as one of a finite number of structural options to connect the first part of the hook block to the second part of the hook block), as a safety decision to reduce probability of the bolts and/or nuts of the hook block from becoming loose during hoisting operations of the hook block, and/or to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e. Obvious to try).
Claim 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH 04117896 U (No inventor nor Applicant name is available) in view of Miyazawa (JPH 04341496A).
Regarding claim 13, JPH 04117896 U (from here on just referred to as JPH 896’) discloses:
A device for reducing the hoisting force of a hydraulically driven winch of a mobile crane (see paragraph 0001 of the attached machine translation) comprising:
A crane (see paragraph 0001, and see figure 7) comprising:
a boom system (1, 2, and 12, see figure 7);
a winch arrangement (A, see figure 7) attached to the crane to perform winding or unwinding of a cable (6, see figure 7) of the winch arrangement; and
a load block (7, see figure 7) according to claim 1 attached to the cable (see rejection to claim 1 above).
JPH 896’ does not disclose the boom system is mounted on a rotatable column.
Miyazawa discloses a device for housing hook for wheel crane (see figures 1-6) and teaches the crane (see figures 1-6) comprises a boom system (21, 2a, and 2) mounted on a rotatable column (considered the column supporting upper rotating body B, 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 device of JPH 896’ by mounting the boom system of JPH 896’ to a rotatable column, to mount a boom system on a rotatable column as taught by Miyazawa, to increase the range of operation of the boom system of JPH 896’ by increasing the range of operation of the boom system by 360 degrees, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, JPH 896’ further shows an abutment (12, see figure 7) for the load block at a tip of the boom system (see figure 7).
Regarding claim 17, with the modification JPH 896’ in view of Miyazawa, as discussed in the rejection of claim 13 above, the boom system comprises a main boom (1, see figure 7) connected to a rotatable column, the main boom comprising at least one extension (2, see figure 7), and wherein the abutment (12, see figure 7) for the load block is present at the tip region of the main boom (see figure 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous set of claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (see new rejections to JPH 04117896 U above) 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
Claim 15-16 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:
JPH 04117896 U (No inventor nor Applicant name is available), Miyazawa (JPH 04341496A), Wiedemann (US Publication 2022/0371862 A1), Gottwald (US Publication 2023/0159305 A1), and Vlazny (US Patent 3,786,935) are considered the closest prior art references to dependent claim 15.
Claim 15 claims:
“wherein the abutment comprises a bearing rotatable about an axis and positioned such that an outer race of the bearing engages with the functional portion of the load block if the load block engages with the abutment”
Important Note: Underlining is provided to point out the important area of the bolded limitation above.
None of JPH 896’, Miyazawa, Wiedemann, Gottwald, nor Vlazny disclose nor would be obvious to the limitation(s) of “wherein the abutment comprises a bearing rotatable about an axis and positioned such that an outer race of the bearing engages with the functional portion of the load block if the load block engages with the abutment”, in conjunction with all of the limitations of claims 13 and 14.
While the prior art teaches of a planar abutment, the prior art does not disclose nor teach of an abutment comprises a bearing rotatable about an axis and positioned such that an outer race of the bearing engages with the functional portion of the load block if the load block engages with the abutment, as claimed in claim 15.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15.
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/
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
