DETAILED ACTION
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0147090 A1 (hereinafter “Ditillo”) in view of US 2007/0278013 A1 (hereinafter “Poeckl”).
Regarding claim 1 Ditillo teaches a crane, having an upper carriage (A2) and a boom (4) articulated to the upper carriage so as to pivot about a horizontal pivot axis (4A), which boom is braced via [a bracing (16) and] a bracing frame (15) mounted on the upper carriage so as to pivot about the horizontal pivot axis and [the boom] can be luffed up and down by pivoting the bracing frame (15),
Comprising: a luffing aid device (8), with which a torque acting in addition to the bracing (16) can be exerted on the boom (4) for luffing the boom in a flat boom position (see fig. 6), wherein the luffing aid device (8) comprises (is) a variable-length traction element, wherein the traction element is designed to exert a tractive force on the boom in the direction of [the upper carriage] (see paragraph 53).
Ditillo fails to teach wherein the luffing aid device comprises an auxiliary arm, which is pivotably mounted on the upper carriage and which is connected to the upper carriage via a retaining element and to the boom via the traction element; wherein the tractive force is in the direction of the auxiliary arm.
Poeckl teaches a similar crane with an upper carriage (11), a boom (20) pivoted to the upper carriage, and a luffing aid device (70) for luffing the boom, the luffing aid device comprising a traction element (71). Poeckl further teaches wherein the luffing aid device (70) comprises an auxiliary arm (72), which is pivotably mounted on the upper carriage (11) and which is connected to the upper carriage (11) via a retaining element (pivot, see figs. 1 and 2) and to the boom (20) via the traction element (71); wherein the traction element (71) is designed to exert a tractive force on the boom (20) in the direction of the auxiliary arm (72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the pivoting auxiliary arm of Poeckl to the luffing aid device of Ditillo with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to give more range of motion to Ditillo.
Regarding claim 2 modified Ditillo teaches the above crane, and further teaches wherein the traction element (Ditillo 8) is connected in an articulated manner (see Poeckl paragraph 24) to the auxiliary arm (Poeckl 72) and the boom (Ditillo 4) and is designed to remain connected to the boom (Ditillo 4) and also to the auxiliary arm (Poeckl 72) during the entire crane operation.
Regarding claim 3 modified Ditillo teaches the above crane, and further teaches wherein the bracing frame (Ditillo 15) is connected to the upper carriage (Ditillo A2) via an actively adjustable bracing cabling (Ditillo 14), which comprises a bracing cable mounted on a cable winch (Ditillo 13) so that the bracing cable can be wound up and unwound, wherein the cable winch (Ditillo 13) is designed to pivot the bracing frame (Ditillo 15) towards a rear of the upper carriage (Ditillo A2) by winding up the bracing cable and thereby to luff the boom (Ditillo 4) coupled to the bracing frame (Ditillo 15) via the bracing (Ditillo 16).
Regarding claim 4 modified Ditillo teaches the above crane, and further teaches wherein the traction element (Ditillo 8) is a separate element from the bracing (Ditillo 16), from the bracing frame (Ditillo 15) and from the boom (Ditillo 4).
Regarding claim 5 modified Ditillo teaches the above crane, and further teaches wherein the traction element (Ditillo 8) is actively adjustable in length and is controllable and/or adjustable in such a way that the traction element (Ditillo 8) exerts a constant or varying (i.e. it must be one or the other) tractive force on the boom (Ditillo 4) when the boom (Ditillo 4) is luffed upwards.
Regarding claim 6 modified Ditillo teaches the above crane, and further teaches wherein the traction element (Ditillo 8) is designed as a hydraulic cylinder (Ditillo paragraph 40).
Regarding claim 7 modified Ditillo teaches the above crane, and further teaches wherein the traction element (Ditillo 8) can be controlled and/or adjusted via at least one hydraulic pump and a control unit (these are inherent in Ditillo’s hydraulic system, or the system would not be pressurized or controlled) of the crane in such a way that the traction element (Ditillo 8) applies a tractive force to the boom (Ditillo 4) in a first angular range (see fig. 6) of the boom (Ditillo 4) to support the luffing process.
Regarding claim 8 modified Ditillo teaches the above crane, and further teaches wherein the traction element (Ditillo 8) is configured to exert (i.e. this is a functional recitation) a compressive force directed away from the upper carriage (Ditillo A2) on the boom (Ditillo 4) in a third angular range (see fig. 3) of the boom (Ditillo 4), in which the boom (Ditillo 4) has a steeper boom (Ditillo 4) position than in the first angular range.
Regarding claim 9 modified Ditillo teaches the above crane, and further teaches wherein the traction element (Ditillo 8) is designed as (adapted to perform the functions of) a fall-back support (see Ditillo paragraph 34), wherein the auxiliary arm (Poeckl 72) is configured to function as an abutment for the traction element (Ditillo 8) when the traction element (Ditillo 8) is in a fall-back support mode (see paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 14 modified Ditillo teaches the above crane, and further teaches a method for luffing the boom (Ditillo 4) of the crane according to claim 7, comprising:
- providing the boom (Ditillo 4) in a flat, laid-out boom position (Ditillo fig. 6),
- pivoting the bracing frame (Ditillo 15) [back] in order to exert an upwardly directed torque on the boom (Ditillo 4), wherein at the same time (see paragraph 53), a tractive force directed towards the auxiliary arm (Poeckl 72) is exerted on the boom (Ditillo 4) via the traction element (Ditillo 8) in order to support the luffing process, and
- luffing the boom (Ditillo 4) by continuing to pivot the bracing frame (Ditillo 15).
Regarding claim 15 modified Ditillo teaches the above method, and further teaches wherein the traction element (Ditillo 8) is used as a fall-back support (Ditillo paragraph 34) for the boom (Ditillo 4) after the raising process (i.e. nothing else holds the boom from tipping backwards), which is only active at certain boom angles and is otherwise switched off (i.e. in the sense that during lifting of the boom, Ditillo 8 is not used as a fall-back support).
Regarding claim 16 modified Ditillo teaches the above crane, and further teaches wherein the crane is a mobile lattice boom (Ditillo 4) crane.
Regarding claim 17 modified Ditillo teaches the above crane, and further teaches wherein the traction element (Ditillo 8) is designed as a double-acting hydraulic cylinder (i.e. it can pull, and acts as a buffer; see Ditillo paragraph 34), by means of which both a tractive force and compressive force can be exerted on the boom (Ditillo 4).
Regarding claims 10 and 18-20 modified Ditillo teaches the above crane, but while Ditillo teaches a method of how to operate the hydraulic cylinder, Ditillo fails to teach any specifics of the hydraulic control, and therefore does not teach the particulars set forth in claims 10 and 18-20. Official Notice is given that hydraulic controls for crane actuators, including sensors to measure variables, automatic shutoffs, characteristic curve controls, etc. are old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add conventional hydraulic control elements, such as those set forth in claims 10 and 18-20, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to properly control the hydraulic cylinder of Ditillo according to the method specified by Ditillo.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 8) that both the Ditillo and Poeckle references are directed to “drilling or construction machines.” This is not persuasive. Both references have a moveable carbody which carries a boom used for lifting and lowering a load. Both references have structure used for luffing the boom. Thus both references are applicable to the current invention, and in the same field of endeavor. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues (pages 8-9) that Poeckle fails to teach a retaining element. This is not persuasive. Claim 1 fails to set forth any structure above Poeckle’s retaining element. That is, the arm 72 is retained from sliding off the assembly due to its pivoted connection. Ergo the pivot connection could be considered a “retaining element.” Applicant’s arguments centered on Applicant’s specification are not persuasive. The claim itself defines the sought intellectual property. In the current case, claim 1 says almost nothing about the so-called “retaining element.” Namely, claim 1 only requires that the auxiliary arm is pivotally connected to the upper carriage by a retaining element. No other details about the retaining element are claimed. No other form or function is set forth in the claim. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time.
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 at (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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.L.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654