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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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,
In claim 14, “wherein the connection device comprises a rotation device via which the ballast plate is connected to the guide rotatably about a vertical axis, wherein the rotation device is arranged on the coupling part or on an intermediate piece connecting the rocker arms to the ballast plate and comprises a pivot bearing with two bearing parts rotatable relative to one another, wherein the bearing parts are coupled directly or indirectly via a second actuator, which is configured to block relative rotation between the bearing parts up to the defined limit torque”.
In lines 4-7 of claim 19, “a first pivot element connected to the ballast plate and a second pivot element connected to the coupling portion, which are pivotably mounted relative to one another about a pivot axis extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the guide and permit rotation of the ballast plate about the pivot axis”.
In lines 2-3 of claim 30, “an inclination detection device with at least one sensor for detecting an inclination of the derrick ballast”.
In claim 31, “at least one actuator arranged on the ballast wagon and/or on the ballast plate, by means of which the ballast plate and/or the ballast wagon can be raised or pivoted relative to the ground, wherein the crane control is configured to control and/or regulate the at least one actuator on the basis of the data provided by the inclination detection device in such a way that the ballast plate is held in a horizontal orientation.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1” has been used to designate both the first actuator of the rocker arm and the first actuator of the adapter element. 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. 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
Claims 1-31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claim 1, “Crane” should read ---A crane---.
In line 1 of claims 2-31, “Crane” should read ---The crane---.
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.
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:
“measuring device” in line 18 of claim 1.
“connecting elements” in line 4 of claim 26.
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, 15-16, and 24 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "second moment range" in line 3 renders the claim unclear because there is no mention of a first moment range.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second force range" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the phrase "at least one second actuator" in lines 4-5 of claim 15 and “at least two second actuators” in lines 1-2 of claim 16 renders the claim unclear because there is no mention of a first actuator.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the rigging block" in line 9. How does the “rigging block” in line 9 relate to the “at least one rigging block” in line 2? Is there another rigging block being claimed that differs from the at least one rigging block? Suggestion to change “the rigging block” to read ---the at least one rigging block---. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshino (JPS62203891A).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshino discloses a crane (1; Figure 1-3), comprising a movable undercarriage (11), a superstructure (12) rotatably mounted on the undercarriage (11), a boom (13) connected to the superstructure (12) in a luffable manner, a derrick boom (7) pivotally connected to the superstructure (12), via which the boom (13) is braced, a crane control (4l-r, 5), a guide (3) connected to the superstructure (12), and a derrick ballast (2), wherein the derrick ballast (2) comprises a ballast plate (bottom most plate 23) for stacking ballast elements (23), which is connected to the derrick boom (7) via a ballast bracing (24) and to the superstructure (12) via the guide (3), and a ballast wagon (21), wherein the ballast wagon (21, 22l-r) comprises a heavy-load transport device (21) with its own drive (22l-r) and its own drive control (5, 62l-r, 72l-r, 74l-r), wherein the guide (3) is connected to the ballast plate (“indirectly”) or the ballast wagon (21, 22l-r) via a connection device (31, 32), wherein the connection device (31, 32) comprises a measuring device (45) which is configured to detect a force counteracting a relative movement between the ballast wagon (21, 22l-r) and the guide (3), and wherein the crane control (4l-r, 5) is connected to the drive control (5, 62l-r, 72l-r, 74l-r) of the heavy-load transport device (21) via a control connection and is configured to control and/or regulate the heavy-load transport device (21) depending on the force detected by the measuring device (45; page 6, ¶6, page 7 last ¶ - page 8 ¶2).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshino discloses wherein the connection device (31, 32) is arranged between the guide (3) and the ballast plate (bottom most plate 23) and comprises a coupling part (31; Figure 3) rigidly connected to the guide (3).
Regarding claim 25, Yoshino discloses wherein the guide (3) is configured to be adjustable in length, wherein the guide (3) comprises a telescopic piece with at least two sections (31; 32) mounted so as to be displaceable one inside the other.
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) 8, 12, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino in view of Willim (US8939298B2).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshino discloses the above crane and further teaches wherein the connection device (31, 32) comprises a movable element (32) which is connected to the ballast plate, is movably mounted relative to the coupling part (31) in the longitudinal direction of the guide (3), but fails to teach wherein the movable element is arranged below a connector which connects the ballast bracing to the guide and is arranged on the guide or on the coupling part.
Willim teaches a similar crane and further teaches wherein the movable element (52; Figure 7) is arranged below a connector (CN; see Willim annotated Figure 6 below; 32 of Yoshino) which connects the ballast bracing (62) to the guide (50) and is arranged on the guide (50) or on the coupling part (CP). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crane of Yoshino to include the connection device connector as taught by Willim in order to directly control movement and lifting of the guide and to simplify the assembly connection to the ballast wagon.
PNG
media_image1.png
194
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Willim, Annotated Figure 6
Regarding claim 12, Yoshino discloses the above crane, but fails to teach wherein the connection device comprises at least two pivotably mounted rocker arms, via which the connection device is movably connected to the ballast plate, wherein the rocker arms permit a movement of the ballast plate relative to the coupling part in the longitudinal direction of the guide and are connected directly to the ballast plate or to an intermediate piece connected to the ballast plate, wherein the rocker arms are arranged below a connection between the ballast bracing and the guide and wherein the rocker arms are arranged on the guide or on the coupling part.
Willim teaches a similar crane and further teaches wherein the connection device (CD; see Willim annotated Figure 6 above) comprises at least two pivotably mounted rocker arms (RA), via which the connection device (CD) is movably connected to the ballast plate (32), wherein the rocker arms (RA) permit a movement of the ballast plate (32) relative to the coupling part (CP) in the longitudinal direction of the guide (50) and are connected directly an intermediate piece (80; Figure 5) connected to the ballast plate (32), wherein the rocker arms (RA) are arranged below a connection between the ballast bracing (62) and the guide (50) and wherein the rocker arms (RA) are arranged on the guide (50) or on the coupling part (CP). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crane of Yoshino to include the connection device as taught by Willim in order for the guide to freely pivot and adjust with variation of movements and fluctuations of the ballast wagon.
Regarding claim 27, Yoshino discloses the above crane and further teaches wherein the guide (3) is mounted on the superstructure (12), but fails to teach wherein the guide is pivotable about a horizontal axis and/or wherein a horizontal distance between a center of gravity of the derrick ballast and an axis of rotation of the superstructure is greater than a horizontal distance between a tip of the derrick boom and the axis of rotation of the superstructure.
Willim teaches a similar crane and further teaches wherein the guide (50; Figure 6) is pivotable about a horizontal axis (pivot point on bracket mounted on superstructure 16; Figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crane of Yoshino to include the pivotable guide as taught by Willim in order for the guide to self- adjust at a pivoting angle according to different ballast wagon elevations and different ballast weight stack heights.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino in view of Koizumi (JP2021147123A).
Regarding claim 24, Yoshino discloses the above crane, but fails to teach at least one rigging block and first and second connecting connectors for connecting the ballast bracing, in an articulated manner to the at least one rigging block and/or to the guide, and further comprising a third connector for mounting the at least one rigging block on the ballast plate, wherein the ballast plate can be removed from the ballast wagon and wherein the at least one rigging block and the ballast plate are configured in such a way that the derrick ballast can be used as a suspended ballast when the rigging block is mounted and separated from the ballast wagon.
Koizumi teaches a similar crane and further teaches at least one rigging block (55; Figures 4 and 6) and first and second connecting connectors (55A, 55B) for connecting the ballast bracing (36; Figure 1), in an articulated manner to the at least one rigging block (55) and/or to the guide (60), and further comprising a third connector (bottom end connections of 55C) for mounting the at least one rigging block (55) on the ballast plate (40), wherein the ballast plate (40) can be removed from the ballast wagon (50) and wherein the at least one rigging block (55) and the ballast plate (40) are configured in such a way that the derrick ballast (4) can be used as a suspended ballast when the rigging block (55) is mounted and separated from the ballast wagon (50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crane of Yoshino to include the rigging block as taught by Koizumi in order to remove the ballast elements from the wagon in a balanced and weight distributed manner to increase safety.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino in view of Frommelt (US20130140258A1).
Regarding claim 26, Yoshino discloses wherein the ballast plate (bottom most plate 23) is placed on the ballast wagon (21, 22l-r), but fails to teach wherein the ballast plate is detachably connected thereto via connecting elements.
Frommelt teaches a similar crane and further teaches wherein the ballast plate (70; Figure 3) is detachably connected thereto via connecting elements (16, 216). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crane of Yoshino to include the ballast plate connecting elements as taught by Frommelt in order to easily remove the ballast elements from the wagon for replacement or maintenance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5, 13-15, 20, and 28 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 2 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 measuring device is arranged outside structures of the guide.
Konishi (US4711358A) teaches a similar crane, is the closest prior art, and further teaches wherein the guide (24; Figure 5) is configured such that the force generated by the derrick ballast (21) is divided into a first force (d) transmitted by the guide (24) and a second force (b) transmitted by the ballast bracing (8) and the ballast bracing (8) transmitting the first and second force, but fails to teach wherein the measuring device is arranged outside structures of the guide.
Claim 3 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 first actuator is configured to provide a rigid connection between the guide and the ballast wagon in the longitudinal direction in a first force range, in which the longitudinal force is less than a defined limit force.
Yoshino is the closest prior art and further teaches wherein the measuring device comprises a first actuator (detects and sends signal to control device 5; page 7, last ¶) by means of which a longitudinal force counteracting the relative movement between the ballast wagon and the guide in a longitudinal direction of the guide can be detected, and the crane control is configured to control and/or regulate the heavy-load transport device depending on the detected longitudinal force in such a way that the longitudinal force is minimized, but fails to teach wherein the first actuator is configured to provide a rigid connection between the guide and the ballast wagon in the longitudinal direction in a first force range, in which the longitudinal force is less than a defined limit force.
Claim 5 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 measuring device comprises a second actuator by means of which a torque counteracting a rotational movement between ballast wagon and guide can be detected, wherein the second actuator is configured to provide a rotationally rigid connection between the guide and the ballast wagon in a first torque range, in which the torque is less than a defined limit torque, and the crane control is configured to control and/or regulate the heavy-load transport device depending on the detected longitudinal force in such a way that the torque is minimized.
Yoshino is the closest prior art, but fails to teach wherein the measuring device comprises a second actuator by means of which a torque counteracting a rotational movement between ballast wagon and guide can be detected, wherein the second actuator is configured to provide a rotationally rigid connection between the guide and the ballast wagon in a first torque range, in which the torque is less than a defined limit torque, and the crane control is configured to control and/or regulate the heavy-load transport device depending on the detected longitudinal force in such a way that the torque is minimized.
Claim 13 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 a first actuator is coupled to a rocker arm of the rocker arms or an intermediate piece movable by means of the rocker arm and to the guide, wherein the first actuator is configured as a hydraulic cylinder which is configured to block a pivoting movement of the rocker arms up to the defined limit force.
Willim teaches a similar crane, is the closest prior art, and further teaches rocker arms, but fails to teach wherein a first actuator is coupled to a rocker arm of the rocker arms or an intermediate piece movable by means of the rocker arm and to the guide, wherein the first actuator is configured as a hydraulic cylinder which is configured to block a pivoting movement of the rocker arms up to the defined limit force.
Claim 14 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 a rotation device is rotatably about a vertical axis, and wherein the bearing parts are coupled directly or indirectly via a second actuator, which is configured to block relative rotation between the bearing parts up to the defined limit torque.
Willim teaches a similar crane, is the closest prior art, and further teaches wherein the connection device comprises a rotation device (52; Figure 7) via which the ballast plate (32) is connected to the guide (50) rotatably about a horizontal axis, wherein the rotation device (52) is arranged on the coupling part connecting the rocker arms to the ballast plate (32) and comprises a pivot bearing (51) with two bearing parts rotatable relative to one another.
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 at least two second actuators, which are each connected on the one hand to the coupling part and on the other hand to one of the rocker arms and simultaneously function as first actuators, wherein the second actuators are arranged in particular in such a way that the second actuators are loaded differently when the ballast plate is rotated relative to the coupling part, and the crane control is configured to control and/or regulate the heavy-load transport device depending on the detected load difference.
Willim teaches a similar crane, is the closest prior art, and further teaches two rocker arms, but fails to teach at least two second actuators, which are each connected on the one hand to the coupling part and on the other hand to one of the rocker arms and simultaneously function as first actuators, wherein the second actuators are arranged in particular in such a way that the second actuators are loaded differently when the ballast plate is rotated relative to the coupling part, and the crane control is configured to control and/or regulate the heavy-load transport device depending on the detected load difference.
Claim 20 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 measuring device comprises at least one force measuring bolt, by means of which a longitudinal force counteracting a relative movement between the ballast wagon and the guide in the longitudinal direction of the guide can be detected.
Yoshino teaches a measuring device by means of which a longitudinal force counteracting a relative movement between the ballast wagon and the guide in the longitudinal direction of the guide can be detected, wherein the crane control is configured to control and/or regulate the heavy-load transport device depending on the detected longitudinal force in such a way that the longitudinal force is minimized, but fails to teach wherein the connection device is arranged between the guide and the ballast plate and comprises a coupling part rigidly connected to the guide, wherein the measuring device comprises at least one force measuring bolt, by means of which a longitudinal force counteracting a relative movement between the ballast wagon and the guide in the longitudinal direction of the guide can be detected. Willim teaches a similar crane and further teaches wherein the connection device is arranged between the guide and the ballast plate and comprises a coupling part rigidly connected to the guide, but fails to teach wherein the measuring device comprises at least one force measuring bolt, by means of which a longitudinal force counteracting a relative movement between the ballast wagon and the guide in the longitudinal direction of the guide can be detected.
Claim 28 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 control connection comprises two separate data connections between the crane control and the drive control of the heavy-load transport device, wherein a first data connection comprises a data bus and/or a second data connection comprises at least one safety switching device with a safety relay contact.
Iwazawa (US10287145B2) teaches a similar crane, is the closest prior art, and further teaches a control connection comprising data connections between the crane control (82; Figure 5) and the drive control (84) of the heavy-load transport device (4), but fails to teach wherein the control connection comprises two separate data connections between the crane control and the drive control of the heavy-load transport device, wherein a first data connection comprises a data bus and/or a second data connection comprises at least one safety switching device with a safety relay contact.
Claims 4, 9-11, and 17-19 would be allowable because they are dependents of claim 3.
Claim 6 would be allowable because it is a dependent of claim 5.
Claim 16 would be allowable because it is a dependent of claim 15.
Claims 21-23 would be allowable because they are dependents of claim 20.
Claims 29-31 would be allowable because they are dependents of claim 28.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
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.
/H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights