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 Amendment
Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 5 are amended. Claims 8-20 are cancelled. New claims 21-26 are added.
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 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao (JP 2017137444 A) in view of Keller (US 9663959 B1).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6-7, Nagao teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. below) a jib crane cart assembly, comprising: a platform (loading floor 9) having a proximal surface (top surface of floor 9) and a distal surface (lower surface of floor 9), (in jib crane cart assembly of Nagao, handrails extend between proximal and distal surfaces of the platform 9 which can be interpreted as reinforcement structure); a pair of masts (11) extending from said proximal surface of said platform, each of said masts having a jib arm (13) hingedly connected thereto;
PNG
media_image1.png
162
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a set of wheels (8) secured to said platform; at least one counterweight (weight of module blocks 4 on top of floor 9) secured to said proximal surface of said platform; said proximal surface of said platform includes at least one floor member arranged thereon (platform/floor 9 on which loads/blocks 4 are seated).
PNG
media_image2.png
807
1047
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Keller teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a flooring with a reinforcement structure (502, 32); wherein said reinforcement structure further includes: a plurality of connected outer members (504, 504, 504, 504); and, a plurality of inner members (502, 32), some of said plurality of inner members (502) are connected to some of said plurality of outer members (504) and some of said plurality of inner members (32) are connected to some of said plurality of inner members (502); said proximal surface of said platform includes at least one floor member (top floor) arranged thereon.
PNG
media_image3.png
685
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to used reinforcement structure for platform of Nagao as taught by Keller for proper load distribution on entire platform.
Regarding claim 2, Nagao teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. above) said set of wheels are arranged for a cart track of a coke oven battery.
PNG
media_image4.png
120
906
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Nagao teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. above) each mast is supported by a supporting member extending from said platform.
Regarding claim 6, Nagao teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. above) each jib arm includes a hoist (jib hoist 14) displaceably attached thereto.
PNG
media_image5.png
119
900
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 5 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao In view of Keller and further in view of Mesic (DE 3927757 C1).
Regarding claim 5, Nagao teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. above) said set of wheels comprises at least one complementary pair of wheels (8) arranged to engage a single rail of the cart track, Nagao does not show wheel flanges.
Mesic teaches wheel alternate flanges on single rail 8 for keeping to prevent disengagement from the rail.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wheels with alternate flanges to prevent disengagement of jib crane cart from the rail.
Regarding claims 21 and 24, Nagao teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. above) a jib crane cart assembly for use on a cart track of a coke oven battery,
PNG
media_image4.png
120
906
media_image4.png
Greyscale
comprising: a platform (loading floor 9) having a proximal surface (top surface of floor 9) and a distal surface (lower surface of floor 9), (in jib crane cart assembly of Nagao, handrails extend between proximal and distal surfaces of the platform 9 which can be interpreted as reinforcement structure); a pair of masts (11) extending from said proximal surface of said platform, each of said masts having a jib arm (13) hingedly connected thereto;
PNG
media_image1.png
162
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and, a set of wheels (8) secured to said platform, wherein said set of wheels comprises at least one complementary pair of wheels arranged to engage a single rail of the cart track, Nagao does not show wheel flanges.
Keller teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a flooring with a reinforcement structure (502, 32); wherein said reinforcement structure further includes: a plurality of connected outer members (504, 504, 504, 504); and, a plurality of inner members (502, 32) connected to the outer members.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to used reinforcement structure for platform of Nagao as taught by Keller for proper load distribution on entire platform.
Mesic teaches wheel alternate flanges on single rail 8 for keeping to prevent disengagement from the rail.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wheels with alternate flanges to prevent disengagement of jib crane cart from the rail.
Regarding claim 22, Nagao teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. above) at least one counterweight (weight of module blocks 4 on top of floor 9) secured to said proximal surface of said platform (platform/floor 9 on which loads/blocks 4 are seated).
Regarding claim 23, Nagao teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. above) each jib arm includes a hoist (jib hoist 14) displaceably attached thereto.
PNG
media_image5.png
119
900
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao In view of Keller and Mesic and further in view of Helms (US 4508233 A).
Regarding claims 25-26, Nagao doesn’t show if the mast is height adjustable.
Helms teaches pivotable and height adjustable mast supported by a supporting member 17 on a platform 14.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to make mast of Nagao supported on a supporting member and height adjustable to reach different heights based on usage of the jib crane cart assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references being used in the current rejection as necessitate by amendments.
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 MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights