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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“fixing device” in line 7 of claim 11.
“rolling element” in line 3 of claim 12.
“pressing element” in line 6 of claim 12 and line 4 of claim 13.
“release device” in line 2 of claim 16.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 11, 14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichler (DD53282B1) in view of Hayashida (EP0181399A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Eichler discloses a mobile crane supporting device and a mobile crane comprising a supporting device, comprising: a first support segment (1; Figure 1) configured to be fastened to an undercarriage of a mobile crane (page 2, first paragraph); a second support segment (3) configured to be moved within and relative to the first support segment (1) and which comprises a support foot (2) configured to be moved in a vertical direction; a fixing device (7-10) comprising contact portions (top surface of fixing device 7 and 10 and bottom surface of fixing device 8 and 9) which are respectively assigned to the first support segment (1) and the second support segment (3) and are configured to be moved into abutment with each other in order to prevent a travelling movement of the second support segment (3) in any relative position between the first support segment (1) and the second support segment (3; when the spindle 3 is engaged with the ground surface, this causes the contact portions 7-10 to abut and frictionally wedge with each other to prevent movement of the second support segment 3 relative to the first support segment as shown in Figure 1), wherein the respective contact portions interlock (Figure 1, the top and bottom surface of fixing devices 7,9; 10,8 make a flat and positive contact with each other); and wherein the second support segment (3) is configured to rotate within and relative to the first support segment (1) about an axis extending in a horizontal direction and transversely with respect to the travelling movement to selectively move the contact portions into abutment with each other or separate them from each other (Figures 1-2; second support segment 3 pivots about the axis of roller 4), but fails to teach wherein the respective contact portions interlock in a form fit.
Hayashida teaches a similar mobile crane supporting device and further teaches wherein the respective contact portions (11 and 15; 14 and 16; Figure 4) interlock in a form fit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contact portions of Eichler to include the form fit contact portions as taught by Hayashida in order to increase distribution of contact forces and improve engagement and alignment between the first and second support segment contact portions to prevent lateral movement of the second support segment.
Regarding claim 14, Eichler discloses wherein the respective contact portions (7-10) are arranged on an inner wall of the first support segment (1) and an outer wall of the second support segment (3; Figure 3).
Regarding claim 19, Eichler discloses wherein the first support segment (1) comprises a supporting box (box 1), wherein the supporting box is associated with the second support segments (3) comprising supporting members (both support segments 3) which are movable on both sides of the supporting box.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichler, in view of Hayashida, and in further view of Lambert (US4084777A).
Regarding claim 12, modified Eichler discloses the above mobile crane supporting device, but fails to teach wherein an end region of the first support segment facing the support foot comprises: a lower support bearing which comprises at least one rolling element and via which the second support segment is configured to be supported on the first support segment while moving, and/or an upper support bearing which comprises at least one pressing element and via which the second support segment is configured to be supported on the first support segment while rotating.
Lambert teaches a similar mobile crane supporting device and further teaches wherein an end region (right side of 1A; Figure 1A) of the first support segment (1A) facing the support foot (6A, 8A) comprises: a lower support bearing (bottom side 4A) which comprises at least one rolling element and via which the second support segment (3A) is configured to be supported on the first support segment (1A) while moving, and/or an upper support bearing (top side 4A) which comprises at least one pressing element and via which the second support segment (3A) is configured to be supported on the first support segment (1A) while rotating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the supporting device of Eichler to include the lower support bearing and/or upper support bearing on an end region of the first support segment as taught by Lambert in order to provide smooth translational movement of the second support segment and prevent damage to both the first and second support segments.
Regarding claim 13, Eichler discloses the above mobile crane supporting device and further teaches wherein: an end region of the second support segment (3) facing away from the support foot (2) comprises an upper support bearing (5, 6; Figure 1) which comprises at least one pressing element and via which the second support segment (3) is configured to be supported on the first support segment (1) while moving.
Regarding claims 17-18, modified Eichler discloses the above mobile crane supporting device, but fails to teach wherein the travelling movement of the second support segment relative to the first support segment is generated by a hydraulic cylinder or a mechanical drive; wherein the support foot comprises a hydraulic supporting cylinder.
Lambert teaches a similar mobile crane supporting device and further teaches wherein the travelling movement of the second support segment (3A) relative to the first support segment (1A) is generated by a hydraulic cylinder (10A; Figure 1A); wherein the support foot (6A, 8A) comprises a hydraulic supporting cylinder (11A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the supporting device of Eichler to include the second support segment and support foot hydraulic cylinders as taught by Lambert in order to provide high linear force and smooth operation in a compact configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 with respect to claim 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f), in the last two paragraphs of page 5, the applicant argued that a fixing device, rolling element, pressing element, and release device are understood known structures to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The examiner construed that the fixing device, rolling element, pressing element, and release device have an undefined structure in which can be broadly interpreted as any device that may differ from the intended purpose and function. For example, the fixing device can be interpreted as a fixing pin or clamp, the rolling element can be interpreted as a rolling bearing or shaft, the pressing element can be interpreted as a compression or lever part, and a release device can be interpreted as a vent valve. Therefore, the claim limitation(s) should recite sufficient structure.
Regarding claim 11, in pages 6-8, the applicant argued that the disclosures of Eichler and Lambert fail to teach contact portions respectively assigned to a first support segment and a second support segment configured to be moved into abutment with each other in order to prevent a traveling movement of the second support segment in any relative position between the first support segment and the second support segment, wherein the respective contact portions interlock in a form fit.
The examiner construed that the disclosure of Eichler teaches contact portions respectively assigned to a first support segment and a second support segment configured to be moved into abutment with each other in order to prevent a traveling movement of the second support segment in any relative position between the first support segment and the second support segment due to the frictional engagement that causes a wedging action between the segments to prevent movement. However, the examiner agrees that the disclosures of Eichler and Lambert fail to teach wherein the respective contact portions interlock in a form fit. However, after further review of the prior art, the examiner construed that the disclosure of Hayashida teaches the limitation as described above. Thus, contradicting to applicant’s assertions, such amendment does not overcome the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 15 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including for disclosing wherein at least one of the contact portions exhibits a toothed profile.
Claim 16 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including for disclosing wherein the fixing device comprises a release device which is biased as soon as the contact portions are moved into abutment with each other and which, when biased, is inclined to separate the contact portions from each other again, wherein the release device comprises an elastic spring.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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 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.
/HENRIX SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights