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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 2) that Willim (2019/0002250) fails to disclose “an upper structure rotatably supported by a chassis.” This is not persuasive. The definition of a chassis is:
“the supporting frame of a structure (such as an automobile or television)”
(Merriam Webster online dictionary, 08/05/26).
Willim teaches that element 1 is a “superstructure,” also referred to as a “revolving deck,” as disclosed in figure 2a (see below):
PNG
media_image1.png
336
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is not clear what Applicant believes the superstructure revolves upon. If there was no support below the revolving deck, how could the deck revolve? How would the crane operate? The superstructure (1) cannot simply sit upon the ground and revolve by itself. As is typical, a swing gear is disclosed on the underside of the revolving deck in figure 1 (see below). This structure must be supported by something in order to revolve the revolving deck. Any structural support capable of holding element 1 is considered a “chassis” under the broadest reasonable interpretation (see definition above). Willim therefore teaches a chassis rotatably supporting the revolving deck, and therefore anticipates the limitation. The rejection is maintained.
PNG
media_image2.png
395
908
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues (see page 3) that Willim fails to teach “one or more second mounts connected to the counterweight and adapted for connecting to the support” (emphasis in original). This is not persuasive. The support of claim 10 has not been defined in the claim, or set forth structurally, so Willim meets this limitation. For example, the support is claimed only functionally, i.e. the preamble states “a mounting system for connecting a support…” and “adapted for connecting the support” (emphasis added). Furthermore, Willim’s second mount (M2, see annotated fig. below) is actually connected to a support (2), so it follows that the second mount (M2) must be “adapted for connecting to a support.” The second mount (M2) is both connected (at least indirectly) to counterweights (3), and simultaneously “adapted for connecting to” an undefined support at least because it is actually connected the support (2) which carries counterweights (3). Thus the second mount (M2) meets both prongs of the limitation.
PNG
media_image3.png
431
983
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to Applicant’s assertion concerning an allegedly claimed “secondary external support,” it is noted that this language does not appear anywhere in claim 10 or its dependents, and so the assertion is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues (pages 3-5) that Egawa (US 2015/0139768) fails to teach claim 18. Argument is given to the effect that Egawa fails to teach a second mount associated with the counterweight, because element 16E holds element 24, which is not the counterweight (25). This is not persuasive. The claim term “associated with the counterweight” does not overcome Egawa. Elements 16E and 25 are associated one with another in the sense that they are on the same vehicle. They are in the same assembly. They are even on the same (back) end of the assembly of the vehicle. It is unclear why Applicant thinks these components are not associated one with another.
Claim 18 requires “a support for supporting an object to a crane including a counterweight.” Thus claim 18 requires a support per se which supports an object on a crane, and the crane includes a counterweight. Claim 18 does not require a method step of mounting, moving, or using the counterweight, only that the one or more second mounts are “associated with the counterweight.” Egawa discloses such a mount at least in element 16E, which is “associated” with the counterweight (25) by virtue of being in the same assembly of the same lifting vehicle. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-17 are interpreted as requiring a mounting system useable with a support, but not as requiring a support per se. That is, the recitation “mounting system for connecting to a support” is intrinsically functional. No subsequent recitation requires a support. As the support is not set forth positively in the claims, the claims do not require a support per se.
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0139768 A1 (hereinafter “Egawa”).
Regarding claim 18 Egawa discloses a method of connecting a support (24) for supporting an object to a crane (1) including a counterweight (25), comprising:
Attaching (see fig. 5) the support (24) to one or more first mounts (24A) removably attached to a rotatable upper structure (5) of the crane (1) and one or more second mounts (16E) associated with the counterweight (25).
Regarding claim 19 Egawa discloses the above method, and further discloses wherein the support (24) comprises (is) a platform (24), and further including the step of placing an auxiliary power unit (29) on the platform (24).
Regarding claim 20 Egawa discloses the above method, and further discloses connecting the platform (24) to the one or more second mounts (16E) associated with a base plate (16C) of the counterweight (25).
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0002250 A1 (hereinafter “Willim”).
Regarding claim 1 Willim discloses a crane including a mounting system for connecting a support (capable of connecting a support; i.e. this is a functional recitation), comprising:
an upper structure (1) rotatably supported by a chassis (portion of crane below the revolving deck);
one or more first mounts (M1, see annotated figure below) connected to the upper structure (1) and adapted for connecting to (capable of connecting to; i.e. this is a functional recitation) the support; and
PNG
media_image3.png
431
983
media_image3.png
Greyscale
one or more second mounts (M2) connected to the upper structure (1) and adapted for connecting to (capable of connecting to; i.e. this is a functional recitation) the support.
Regarding claim 2 Willim discloses the above crane, and further discloses wherein the one or more first mounts (M1) comprise a pair of upper mounting brackets (UB) adapted to be removably attached from the upper structure (1).
PNG
media_image4.png
431
983
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4 Willim discloses the above crane, and further discloses wherein the one or more second mounts (M2) comprise (is) a lower mounting bracket including at least one fastener (pin).
Regarding claims 5 and 14 Willim discloses the above crane, and further discloses wherein the one or more first mounts (M1) and the one or more second mounts (M2) comprise (are):
a first upper mount and a first lower mount are aligned in a first common vertical plane (i.e. see alignment shown by figure 1); and
a second upper mount and a second lower mount are aligned in a second common vertical plane (i.e. see alignment shown by figure 1).
Regarding claims 6 and 15 Willim discloses the above crane, and further discloses wherein the support (with which the claimed crane is useable) comprises a platform (i.e. similar to element 2) having a pair of arms and a pair of legs (similar to fig. 2a), the one or more first mounts (M1) comprising (being) a pair of upper mounts, each being adapted to connect to one of the pair of arms (per fig. 2a), and the one or more second mounts (M2) comprising (being) a pair of lower mounts, each being adapted to connect to one of the pair of legs (per fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 7 Willim discloses the above crane, and further discloses further including a counterweight (3), wherein the one or more lower mounts (of M2, above) are integrally formed (in assembly with; i.e. the mounts are “necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental” as they hold up the counterweight) with the counterweight (3).
Regarding claims 8 and 16 Willim discloses the above crane, and further discloses wherein the counterweight (3) comprises one or more plates, and the one or more lower mounts (of M2) are integrally formed (in assembly with; i.e. the mounts are “necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental” as they hold up the plates) with one or more of the plates.
Regarding claims 9 and 17 Willim discloses the above crane, and further discloses wherein the counterweight (3) comprises a stack of two or more plates, and the one or more lower mounts (of M2, above) are integrally formed with (in assembly with; i.e. the mounts are “necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental” as they hold up the lowermost plate) a lowermost plate in the stack of plates.
Regarding claim 10 Willim discloses a crane including a mounting system for connecting a support (capable of connecting a support; i.e. this is a functional recitation), comprising:
an upper structure (1) rotatably supported by a chassis (portion of crane below the revolving deck), the upper structure (1) including a counterweight (3);
one or more first mounts (M1) connected to the upper structure (1) and adapted for connecting to the support; and
PNG
media_image3.png
431
983
media_image3.png
Greyscale
one or more second mounts (M2) connected to the counterweight (3) and adapted for connecting to the support (capable of connecting to a support; i.e. this is a functional recitation).
Regarding claim 11 Willim discloses the above crane, and further discloses wherein the one or more first mounts (M1) comprise a pair of upper mounting brackets (UB, see annotated figure below) adapted to be removably attached from the upper structure (1).
PNG
media_image4.png
431
983
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13 Willim discloses the above crane, and further discloses wherein the second mount (M2) comprises (is) a pair of lower mounting brackets, each including at least one fastener (pin).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willim in view of US 6,065,620 (hereinafter “McGhie”).
Regarding claims 3 and 12 Willim discloses the above crane, and further teaches a pair of mounting brackets, each adapted for receiving at least three fasteners (i.e. sequentially, not simultaneously). Willim fails to teach each bracket comprising spaced plates, i.e. only one is clearly shown in the figures. This difference represents no more than duplication of parts, and is considered obvious in view of McGhie. McGhie teaches one or more pairs of brackets (see figure 9C) on a support (154) in conjunction with a counterweight system (see abstract). McGhie further teaches wherein each of the brackets includes a pair of spaced apart plates instead of a single plate (see fig. 9C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make each of the brackets of Willim with two spaced apart plates, as taught by McGhie with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide better securement of the fasteners of Willim.
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
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights