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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a bore” (claim 4), “a bearing” (claim 4), “a bolt” (claim 4), “one or more pulleys” (claim 7), “two-wire mode of operation” (claim 7), “multi-wire mode of operation” (claim 7), “a bore” (claim 8), “a bolt” (claim 8), “a planar abutment” (claim 11), “an abutment” (claim 12), “end faces” (claim 16), “a main boom” (claim 17), and “at least one extension” (claim 17) 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 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.
Claims 6, 10 and 15 are 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 6, “the curvature” (line 6) lacks antecedent basis. The limitation of “increasing curvature” is recited in dependent claim 2, not earlier claims 4 or 1 of this claim.
Regarding claim 10, this claim claims:
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 removable bolt of the first part and a second bore serving as a bearing for the removable bolt.
The above limitations render the claim indefinite because the limitations are unclear as to whether 1) the fixed bolt engages the recess or 2) the removable bolt engages the recess. Thus, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
The fixed bolt appears to engage the recess. The removable bolt appears to engage the first bore and the second bore, not the recess.
For this office action, the above limitations will be considered as requiring the fixed bolt to be the bolt that engages the recess.
Regarding claim 15, “the functional surface” (lines 2-3) lacks antecedent basis. Is Applicant referring to the -functional portion- recited in claim 1?
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, 11-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyazawa (JPH 04341496A).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazawa discloses a device for housing hook for wheel crane (see figures 1-6) comprising:
A load block (3, see figures 1-6, especially figures 2-3) for a crane, the load block comprising;
a mounting interface (considered the bottom part portion of main hoisting hook 3) to attach a load to the load block, means to transfer force (7, see figures 2-3) to a cable (4, see figures 2-3), wherein a surface (see below) of the load block comprises a functional portion (considered the top surface of block 3 that contacts lower surface 21c, see figures 2-3) having a shape (considered the shape of the top surface) that causes a turning moment (see turning movement of block 7 in figures 2-3) on the load block if the functional portion of the surface engages an abutment (considered lower surface 21c, see figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 4, Miyazawa further shows the mounting interface comprises a bore (considered the bore for the bolt supporting the hook, see figures 2-3) configured to serve as a bearing for a bolt (considered the bolt supporting the book, see figures 2-3) supporting a hook (see hook as shown in figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 5, Miyazawa further shows a hook (see hook as shown in figures 2-3) attached to the mounting interface (see figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 7, Miyazawa further shows wherein the load block (3) exhibits one or more pulleys (7, see figures 2-3) for using the load block in a two-wire mode of operation (see figures 2-4) or in a multi-wire mode of operation (see figures 2-4).
Regarding claim 11, Miyazawa further shows wherein the functional portion (considered the top surface of block 3 that contacts lower surface 21c, see figures 2-3) has a shape (considered the shape of the top surface) that causes a turning moment (see figure 2-3) on the load block if the functional portion of the support block is pushed towards a planar abutment (considered lower surface 21c, see figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 12, Miyazawa further shows wherein the functional portion (considered the top surface of block 3 that contacts lower surface 21c, see figures 2-3) comprises a protrusion (considered the protrusion of the top surface of block 3, see figures 2-3) for interacting with an abutment (considered lower surface 21c, see figures 2-3) of a boom (21, 2a, and 2, see figures 2-3) of the crane, wherein the protrusion causes a turning moment (see figures 2-3) of the load block with respect to the boom of the crane.
Regarding claim 13, Miyazawa further shows:
a crane (see figures 1-6) comprising: a boom system (21, 2a, and 2) mounted on a rotatable column (considered the column supporting upper rotating body B, see figure 1);
a winch arrangement (considered the main hoisting winch, see paragraph 0004 of attached machine translation) attached to the crane to perform winding or unwinding of a cable (4, see figures 1-6, and paragraph 0004 of attached machine translation) of the winch arrangement; and
a load block (3, see figures 1-6) according to claim 1 attached to the cable.
Regarding claim 14, Miyazawa further shows an abutment (considered lower surface 21c, see figures 2-3) for the load block at a tip (see figures 2-4) of the boom system.
Regarding claim 17, Miyazawa further shows a main boom (2, see figures 1-6) connected to the rotatable column, the main boom comprising at least one extension (2a, see figures 1-6), wherein the abutment (considered lower surface 21c, see figures 2-3) for the load block is present at the tip region of the main boom (see figures 1-6).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa (JPH 04341496A) in view of Wiedemann (US Publication 2022/0371862 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Miyazawa does not explicitly disclose a bore for a bolt to attach the wire (i.e. a fastening means for a wire).
Wiedemann discloses a hook block (10, see figures 1, 3 and 5) comprising an upper hook block part (20), a lower hook part (22), and the upper hook block part further comprises a fastening means (21, see figures 1, 3 and 5) with a cable (see figures 1, 3 and 5) fastened to the fastening means. Wiedemann teaches that the fastening means (21) of the upper hook block part can be lashed or fastened to another lifting hook (6b) of the crane located at the upper side of the upper hook block part (see paragraph 0064). Thus, Wiedemann teaches of providing a fastening means for a wire on the upper hook block part of a two part hook block.
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 by providing a fastening means (such as a bore and a bolt to attach a wire) to the device of Miyazawa, to lash or fasten the upper hook block part of a hook block to another lifting hook of a crane located at the upper side of the upper hook block part as taught by Wiedemann, as such a fastening means is beneficial to Miyazawa as the fastening means would allow Miyazawa to connect the auxiliary hook block (9) to the main hook block (7) for the benefit of increasing the lifting capacity of the main hook block and for the benefit of reducing pendulum movements of the main hook block as there would be two components of lifting force (one from main hoisting rope 4 of Miyazawa and another from auxiliary rope 10 of Miyazawa) instead of only one component of lifting force (from main hoisting rope 4 of Miyazawa only).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa (JPH 04341496A) in view of Gottwald (US Publication 2023/0159305 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Miyazawa further shows:
the first part (the bottom part of main hoisting hook 3) comprising the mounting interface (considered the bottom half portion of main hoisting hook 3); and the second part (the top part of main hoisting hook 3) comprising the surface with the functional portion (considered the top surface of block 3 that contacts lower surface 21c, see figures 2-3) and the means to transfer force (7, see figures 2-3) to the cable (4, see figures 2-3).
Miyazawa does not explicitly disclose the load block comprising 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 Miyazawa 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 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, and/or 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa (JPH 04341496A) 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, Miyazawa 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 removable 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 removable 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 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.
Claims 6 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Miyazawa (JPH 04341496A) and Gottwald (US Publication 2023/0159305 A1) are considered the closest prior art references to dependent claims 2-3 and 16.
Neither Miyazawa nor Gottwald disclose nor would be obvious to the claim subject matter of these claims.
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 3619