DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
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, the following claimed limitations (see below) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The claimed limitations not shown are:
“a main chord” (see claim 1 line 22)
“connectors” (see claim 1 line 23)
“a main chord” (claim 14 line 7)
“locking members” (claim 14 line 9)
“connectors” (claim 14 line 12)
“connectors” (claim 14 line 14)
“a sheave assembly” (claim 17 line 8)
“a pivoting actuator mechanism” (claim 27 line 3)
“a trailer chassis” (claim 29 line 3)
“a sheave assembly” (claim 30 line 8)
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.
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.
Claim 28 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 28, this claim claims “a second road vehicle configured to transport the slewable jib unit to the hoisting site, wherein the jib unit is oriented horizontally on the second road vehicle” (see lines 6-7). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear as to whether or not the second road vehicle is being claimed as a part of the self-climbing tower crane. Is the second road vehicle being claimed as a part of the self-climbing tower crane.
For this office action, this limitation will be interpreted as claiming that the second road vehicle is a part of the self-climbing tower crane.
Please review all claims before the formal response is submitted, as any new 112(b) rejections introduced in the response may be grounds for a Final Rejection.
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 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rudolf (DE 2931422 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Rudolf discloses a tower crane (see figures 1-16) comprising:
A tower crane (see figures 1-16) which is configured to be arranged on a support (considered the ground surface, see figures 6-9 and 11-14) at a hoisting site, wherein the tower crane comprises:
a crane base (14, see figure 6) configured to be placed on the support at the hoisting site (see figure 6);
a crane tower (1, see figure 6) to be erected on the crane base and to be composed of tower segments (26 and/or 27, see figures 13-14) that are to be stacked one-by-one onto one another (see paragraphs 0068-0069 of provided machine translation);
a crane tower lifting unit (6 and 17, see figure 8) configured to perform a lifting action in the process of
erecting the crane tower (see figure 6); and
a slewable jib unit (4, 5, and 7, see figure 9) configured to be mounted on top of the crane tower (see figure 9), wherein the crane base, crane tower lifting unit, and slewable jib unit are configured to be
combined to an assembly (see figures 1, 6-9 and 11-14) which is to be arranged at the hoisting site in an initiation state thereof, the assembly in said initiation state comprising:
the crane base placed on the support at the hoisting site (see figures 1, 6-9 and 11-14);
the crane tower lifting unit pivotally mounted to the crane base and oriented horizontally (see figures 1, 6-9 and 11-14); and
the slewable jib unit connected to the crane tower lifting unit and oriented
horizontally (1, 6-9 and 11-14, especially figure 1),
wherein the interconnected crane tower lifting unit and slewable jib unit are pivotal relative to the crane base into a vertical orientation in an upending step (see figures 1, 6-9 and 11-14, especially figure 6), and
wherein the crane is configured to, with the interconnected crane tower lifting unit and slewable jib unit in said vertical orientation, erect the crane tower by stacking tower segments one-by-one onto one another to lengthen the crane tower under the jib unit (see figures 1, 6-9 and 11-14), and wherein the crane tower lifting unit is configured to perform a lifting action in association with the stacking of a tower-segment (see figures 1, 6-9 and 11-14, especially figures 13-14).
Regarding claim 27, Rudolf further shows wherein the assembly which is to be arranged at the hoisting site in an initiation state thereof (see figure 6) further comprises a pivoting actuator mechanism (17, see figure 6) that is configured to pivot the interconnected crane tower lifting unit and slewable jib unit into the vertical orientation in the upending step (see figures 1, 6-9 and 11-14, especially figure 6).
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 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 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudolf (DE 2931422 A1) in view of Weisbauer (US Publication 2008/0169258 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Rudolf does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the tower crane comprises:
a first road vehicle configured to transport the crane base and the crane tower lifting unit to the hoisting site, wherein the lifting unit is pivotally mounted to the crane base and is oriented horizontally on the first road vehicle, vehicle; and
a second road vehicle configured to transport the slewable jib unit to the hoisting site, wherein the jib unit is oriented horizontally on the second road vehicle.
Weisbauer discloses a vehicle mounted crane (see figures 1-13) comprising a first road vehicle (the first transport unit, see paragraph 0059) configured to transport a crane base (23a, 23b, and 21, see figure 2) and a crane tower lifting unit (27, see figure 2) to the hoisting site (see figure 2), wherein the lifting unit is pivotally mounted to the crane base (see figure 2) and is oriented horizontally on the first road vehicle (as the lifting unit 27 is at least partially horizontal on the vehicle) and a second road vehicle (a second transport unit, see paragraph 0070) configured to transport a slewable jib unit (13) to the hoisting site, wherein the jib unit is oriented horizontally on the second road vehicle (as the jib unit is horizontal when the transport unit is driving on roads, also paragraph 0070). Thus, Weisbauer teaches of transporting a crane base and a crane tower lifting unit on a first road vehicle and transporting a slewable jib unit on a second road vehicle.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tower crane of Rudolf by separably transporting the crane base and the crane tower lifting unit on a first road vehicle and transporting the slewable jib unit on a second road vehicle, to transport a crane base and a crane tower lifting unit on a first road vehicle and to transport a slewable jib unit on a second road vehicle as taught by Weisbauer, to reduce the size of each road vehicle as transporting the tower crane in smaller assemblies allows for use or small road vehicles, to better able the transport the parts of the tower crane on smaller roads as more vehicles used to transport the tower crane allows for transport of the tower crane on smaller roads, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 29, Rudolf does not explicitly disclose wherein a first road vehicle forms at least a part of the crane base, the first road vehicle having a trailer chassis, which forms at least a part of the crane base.
Weisbauer discloses a vehicle mounted crane (see figures 1-13) comprising a first road vehicle (the first transport unit, see paragraph 0059) further comprising a trailer chassis (23a and 23b, see figures 1-4) that forms at least part of the crane base (21, 23a, and 23b, see figures 1-4). Thus, Weisbauer teaches of a trailer chassis of a first road vehicle forming at least part of a crane base.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tower crane of Rudolf by providing a trailer chassis of a first road vehicle as at least part of a crane base, to provide a trailer chassis of a first road vehicle as at least part of a crane base as taught by Weisbauer, to reduce the time needed to transport the crane base to different work sites by always having the crane base attached to a trailer chassis of a road vehicle, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudolf (DE 2931422 A1) in view of St-Germain (US Publication 2003/0213765 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Rudolf further shows a slew bearing (7, see figure 9) mounted between a lower jib unit structure (see annotated figures below) that is to be connected to the crane tower (see figures 13-14) or the crane tower lifting unit (see figure 9) and an upper jib unit structure (4 and 5, see figure 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
490
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
580
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rudolf does not explicitly disclose wherein the slewable jib unit comprises a jib that is pivotally mounted to the upper jib unit structure about a jib pivot axis, a jib luffing mechanism configured to luff the jib; and a winch and associated hoisting cable depending from a sheave assembly on the jib.
St-Germain discloses a tower crane with a raising platform (see figures 1-7, especially figure 1) comprising a telescopic jib (28, 42, and 50, see figure 1) that is pivotally mounted to an upper jib unit structure (40, see figure 1) about a jib pivot axis (44, see figure 1), a jib luffing mechanism (64, see figure 1) configured to luff the jib; and a winch (considered the winch of cable 58) and associated hoisting cable (58, see figure 1) depending from a sheave assembly (56, see figure 1) on the jib. Thus, St-Germain teaches using a luffable jib on a raising tower crane. St-Germain also teaches that jib is slewing and luffing jib (see arrows A and B in figure 1).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tower crane of Rudolf by substituting the slewable and luffable jib unit (which comprises a winch, hoisting cable, and sheave assembly) of St-Germain for upper jib unit structure (4 and 5) of Rudolf, to use a luffable jib on a raising tower crane as taught by St-Germain, to use a jib that both slews and luffs on a tower crane as taught by St-Germain, to increase the range of operations of the crane as a telescopic jib increases the range of operation of the crane, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Rudolf (DE 2931422 A1), Weisbauer (US Publication 2008/0169258 A1), and St-Germain (US Publication 2003/0213765 A1) are considered the closest prior art references to the claimed invention of independent claim 1.
Claim 1 claims:
A self-climbing tower crane which is configured to be arranged on a support at a hoisting site, wherein the tower crane comprises:
a crane base configured to be placed on the support at the hoisting site;
tower segments which are configured to be stacked onto one another from below in order to erect a crane tower which is composed of the tower segments on the crane base;
a crane tower lifting unit mounted on the crane base and configured to perform lifting actions in the process of stacking of the tower segments, wherein the crane tower lifting unit stepwise lifts the crane tower from below; and
a slewable jib unit configured to be mounted on top of the crane tower,
wherein the tower crane is configured to, with the slewable jib unit connected to an upper tower segment, erect the crane tower by stacking the tower segments onto one another from below to lengthen the crane tower under the slewable jib unit,
wherein the crane tower comprises an upper section to be composed of a series of multiple upper tower segments and a lower section to be composed of a series of multiple lower tower segments, the lower section being configured to support the upper thereon,
wherein each upper tower segment is embodied as a tubular girder type tower segment having a height and having an outer peripheral wall of steel plate, as well as upper and lower end portions provided with connectors to rigidly interconnect the upper tower segments,
wherein each lower tower segment embodied as a latticed structure type tower segment having a height, having a main chord at each corner, and bracing between adjacent main chords, wherein the main chords are provided at ends thereof with connectors to rigidly interconnect the lower tower segments,
wherein the tower crane further comprises an upper stabilizer device and a lower stabilizer device, each configured to horizontally connect the upper section of the crane tower to an external tall structure.
Important Note: Underlining is provided to point out the important areas of the bolded limitations above.
None of Rudolf, Weisbauer, nor St-Germain disclose nor would be obvious to the limitations of 1) “wherein each upper tower segment is embodied as a tubular girder type tower segment having a height and having an outer peripheral wall of steel plate, as well as upper and lower end portions provided with connectors to rigidly interconnect the upper tower segments”, 2) “wherein each lower tower segment embodied as a latticed structure type tower segment having a height, having a main chord at each corner, and bracing between adjacent main chords, wherein the main chords are provided at ends thereof with connectors to rigidly interconnect the lower tower segments”, and 3) “wherein the tower crane further comprises an upper stabilizer device and a lower stabilizer device, each configured to horizontally connect the upper section of the crane tower to an external tall structure”, in conjunction with the remaining limitations of independent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN J CAMPOS, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5229. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Robert W. Hodge can be reached on phone number (571)272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJC/
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights