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 .
Specification
The amendments to the Specification (see Remarks REM of 06/26/2026 14 pages) have been reviewed and are approved.
Drawings
The amendments to the Drawings (see DRW of 06/26/2026) have been reviewed and are accepted.
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 first left-hand bracket” (claim 13 line 3, only a first right-hand bracket 42 is shown in the drawings)
“a left-hand sheave arm” (claim 13 line 7, only a right-hand sheave arm 44 is shown in figures 4a-4c and 5b-5c)
The Examiner points out that these structures appear to be on the top of the luffing frame structure (18C). See claim 13 lines 1-2. Numeral “43” cited by the Applicant (see Remarks of 06/26/2026 7 pages) is on the head structure (26) of the boom (20).
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 13 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 13, the limitations of “a first left-hand swivel axis and a right-hand horizontal swivel axis” (see lines 2-3) renders the claim indefinite because the limitations are not clear as to whether 1) the “a first left-hand swivel axis and a right-hand horizontal swivel axis” are the same axis as a first essentially horizontal swivel axis of claim 11, or 2) the “a first left-hand swivel axis and a right-hand horizontal swivel axis” are separate axes to a first essentially horizontal swivel axis of claim 11. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear.
What is the relationship between “a first left-hand swivel axis and a right-hand horizontal swivel axis” of claim 13 and “a first essentially horizontal swivel axis” of claim 11?
For the purposes of examination, “a first left-hand swivel axis and a right-hand horizontal swivel axis” will be considered the same axis as a first essentially horizontal swivel axis of claim 11.
Further regarding claim 13, the limitation of “a first vertical swivel axis” (line 5) renders the claim indefinite because the claim is unclear as to whether or not 1) the “a first vertical swivel axis” is the same axis as the “first swivel axes having a vertical component” of claim 9 (see last line of claim 9), or 2) the “a first vertical swivel axis” is a separate axis to the “first swivel axes having a vertical component” of claim 9 (see last line of claim 9). Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear.
What is the relationship between “a first vertical swivel axis” of claim 13 and “first swivel axes having a vertical component” of claim 9?
For the purposes of examination, “a first vertical swivel axis” will be considered the same axis as first swivel axes having a vertical component of claim 9.
Further regarding claim 13, “first vertical swivel axes” (lines 9-10, or the last 2 lines) renders the claim indefinite because the claim is unclear as to whether or not 1) the “first vertical swivel axes” is the same axes as the “first swivel axes having a vertical component” of claim 9 (see last line of claim 9), or 2) the “first vertical swivel axes” is a separate axes to the “first swivel axes having a vertical component” of claim 9 (see last line of claim 9). Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear.
What is the relationship between “first vertical swivel axes” of claim 13 and “first swivel axes having a vertical component” of claim 9?
For the purposes of examination, “a first vertical swivel axis” will be considered the same axes as first swivel axes having a vertical component of claim 9.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation of “A jack-up vessel comprising jack-up legs, wherein the vessel is provided with the offshore leg encircling crane according to claim 9 and wherein the base structure of the offshore leg encircling crane is formed integral with the vessel” does not constitute a further limitation because the body of claim 9 positively claims the structure of a base structure mounted to or formed integral with the vessel. For example, claim 9 lines 3-4 claims a base structure adapted to be mounted to or formed integral with, the vessel, and configured to extend about one of the jack-up legs. As the base structure formed integral with the vessel is positively claimed in earlier claim 9, claim 17 does not further define the structure of claim 9.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roodenburg (WO 2020/244973 A1) in view of Glushko et al. (US Patent 3,828,938).
Regarding claim 9, Roodenburg discloses a hoisting crane for use on an offshore vessel and a method of operation (see figures 1a-5e) comprising:
An offshore leg encircling crane (7, see figure 1a) for use on a jack-up vessel (1, see figure 1a) comprising jack-up legs (at least one of 4a, 4b, 4c, and/or 4d, see figures 1a-2b), comprising:
a base structure (22, see figure 4b) adapted to be mounted to, or formed integral with, the vessel (see figures 1a-5e), and configured to extend about one of the jack-up legs (see figures 1a-5e);
a revolving superstructure (21, see figures 1a-5e), comprising:
a crane housing (21, see figures 1a-5e) configured to extend about the jack-up leg (see figures 1a-5e) for allowing slew motion of the revolving superstructure relative to the base structure around a vertical slew axis via a slew bearing (25, see figures 1a-5e), the crane housing comprising a boom connector (26, 26a, 26b, see figure 2b) defining a horizontal boom pivot axis (28, see figure 2b); and
a luffing frame structure (considered the elongated A-frame, see page 16 lines 18-21) onto the crane housing (see page 16 lines 18-21);
a boom (50, see figure 1a) having a longitudinal axis (A, see figure 1A), wherein the boom has a head structure (60, see figure 1a) on a distal portion (see figure 1a) and a proximal end portion (see figure 1a) pivotally connected to the crane housing via the boom connector, so that the boom is pivotal up and down about the boom pivot axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the boom, between an essentially horizontal position (see figure 1a) of the boom and an upright position (see figure 1a) of the boom;
a luffing device (30, 31, 40, and 60L, see figures 1a-5b, especially figure 1a) for pivoting the boom up to the upright position and down (see figure 1a), comprising:
a luffing winch (30, see figures 1a-5e, especially figure 1a) provided at the revolving superstructure;
first left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets (considered the left and right sheave sets of 40, see figures 1a-5e, especially figures 1a and 5e) provided at opposite sides of the jack-up leg at a top of the luffing frame structure (see figure 5e);
second left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets (60L, see figures 1a-5e, especially figures 1a and 5e) provided at opposite sides of the head structure; and
a variable length luffing system (31, see figures 1a-5e, especially figure 1a) including a luffing cable (31), the variable length luffing system extending from the luffing winch via the first left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets to extend at opposite sides of the jack-up leg in a luffing direction to the second left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets (see figures 1a-5e, especially figures 1a and 5e) provided at opposite sides of the head structure); and
a hoisting system (34a and 34b, see figure 2b) for hoisting a load, comprising a hoisting winch (34a and 34b, see figure 2b) provided at the revolving superstructure (see page 17 lines 33-37) and an associated hoisting cable (36, see figures 3a-3b) extending from the hoisting winch to a cable sheave assembly (see figures 1a-5e) at the head structure of the boom.
Roodenburg does not explicitly disclose wherein the first luffing cable sheave sets are mounted movable to the top of the luffing frame structure, allowing a swivelling motion of the first luffing cable sheave sets about respective first swivel axes having a vertical component.
Glushko et al. (from here on just referred to as Glushko) discloses a luffing crane (see figures 1-3, especially figure 3) comprising first left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets (6 and 7, see figure 3) mounted movable (by at least pivots 15 and 16, see figure 2) to the top of the frame structure (see figure 1) and allowing a swivelling motion (the horizontal rotational motion of sheaves 6 and 7) of the first luffing cable sheaves sets about respective first swivel axes (considered the swivel axes of shafts 6a and 7a, see figure 3) having a vertical component (as shown in figures 1 and 3, each of the swivel axes of shafts 6a and 7a have a vertical component). Glushko further discloses that the first sheave sets are connected to pivots (15 and 16), brackets (considered the structure directly connected to the pivots 15 and 16, see figure 3), and arms (13 and 14, see figure 3).
Glushko teaches that at least the first left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets are a part of a system to move a load in a true horizontal path while the reach of the crane boom is varied (see Abstract, column 1 lines 27-35, column 1 lines 60-68, column 2 lines 26-37, and column 4 lines 9-53).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Roodenburg by substituting the first left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets, the pivots, the brackets, and the arms of Glushko for the first left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets of Roodenburg, to provide structure to the crane to move a load in a true horizontal path while the reach of the crane boom is varied as taught by Glushko, to reduce the horizontal footprint of the first sheave sets as sheave sets having a vertical pivot axes have a reduced horizontal footprint, and/or as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With the modification above, the first luffing cable sheave sets are mounted movable (about at least pivots 15 and 16, see figure 3, as taught by Glushko) to the top of the luffing frame structure, and further allowing a swivelling motion (the horizontal rotational motion of sheaves 6 and 7) of the first luffing cable sheave sets about (i.e. in the vicinity of, or near) a first essentially horizontal swivel axis (considered the horizontal swivel axis of pivots 15 and 16), parallel to the boom pivot axis, regarding claim 11.
With the modification above, the top of the luffing frame structure defines a first left-hand swivel axis and right-hand horizontal swivel axis (considered the axes of pivots 15 and 16, see figure 3, as taught by Glushko) about which a first left-hand bracket and a first right-hand bracket (considered the structure directly connected to the pivots 15 and 16, see figure 3, as taught by Glushko) is allowed to swivel up and down, and wherein each bracket defines a first vertical swivel axis (indirectly, as each bracket is connected to one of sheave arms 13 or 14, and the sheave arm defines the first vertical swivel axis, i.e. the swivel axes of shafts 6a and 7a of Glushko) perpendicular to the luffing direction (see figures 1 and 3 of Glushko), and wherein a left-hand sheave arm (13, as taught by Glushko) comprising the left-hand luffing cable sheave sets (6, as taught by Glushko) and a right-hand sheave arm (14, as taught by Glushko) comprising the right-hand luffing cable sheave sets (7, as taught by Glushko) are supported by the first left-hand and right-hand bracket, respectively, and are rotatable about (i.e. in the vicinity of, or near) the respective first vertical swivel axes (considered the axes of pivots 15 and 16, see figure 3, as taught by Glushko), regarding claim 13.
With the modification above, the first swivel axes extend perpendicular to the luffing direction (see figures 1 and 3, as taught by Glushko), regarding claim 15.
With the modification above, the vessel is a jack-up vessel (1, see figures 1a of Roodenburg) comprising jack-up legs (4a, 4b, 4c, and/or 4d, see figures 1a-1b of Roodenburg), wherein the vessel is provided with the offshore leg encircling crane according to claim 9 and wherein the base structure (22, see figures 1a-1b and 4b) of the offshore leg encircling crane is formed integral with the vessel (see figures 1a-1b and 4b), regarding claim 17.
Regarding claim 10, Roodenburg does not explicitly disclose wherein the second luffing cable sheave sets are mounted movable to the head structure, allowing a swivelling motion of the second luffing cable sheave sets about respective second swivel axes having a vertical component.
Glushko et al. (from here on just referred to as Glushko) discloses a luffing crane (see figures 1-3, especially figure 3) comprising second luffing cable sheave sets (5 and 5a, see figure 3) mounted movable to the head structure (as winding and unwinding rope 19 moves the sheave set, see figures 1 and 3) and allowing a swivelling motion (the horizontal rotational motion of sheaves 5 and 5a) of the second luffing cable sheaves sets about respective second swivel axes (considered the swivel axes of sheaves 5 and 5a, see figure 3) having a vertical component (as shown in figures 1 and 3, each of the swivel axes of sheaves 5 and 5a have a vertical component). Glushko further discloses that the second sheave sets are connected to the head of the boom by a frame (20) and a link (11). See figures 1 and 3.
Glushko teaches that the second left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets are a part of a system to move a load in a true horizontal path while the reach of the crane boom is varied (see Abstract, column 1 lines 27-35, column 1 lines 60-68, column 2 lines 26-37, and column 4 lines 9-53).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Roodenburg by substituting the second left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets, the frame, and the link of Glushko for the second left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets of Roodenburg, to provide structure to the crane to move a load in a true horizontal path while the reach of the crane boom is varied as taught by Glushko, to reduce the horizontal footprint of the second sheave sets as sheave sets having a vertical pivot axes have a reduced horizontal footprint, and/or as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Roodenburg does not explicitly disclose wherein the second luffing cable sheave sets are mounted movable to the head structure, further allowing a swivelling motion of the second luffing cable sheave sets about a second essentially horizontal swivel axis.
Glushko et al. (from here on just referred to as Glushko) discloses a luffing crane (see figures 1-3, especially figure 3) comprising second luffing cable sheave sets (5 and 5a, see figure 3) mounted movable to the head structure (as winding and unwinding rope 19 moves the sheave set, see figures 1 and 3) and allowing a swivelling motion (the horizontal rotational motion of sheaves 5 and 5a) of the second luffing cable sheaves sets about respective second swivel axes (considered the swivel axes of sheaves 5 and 5a, see figure 3) having a vertical component (as shown in figures 1 and 3, each of the swivel axes of sheaves 5 and 5a have a vertical component). Glushko further discloses that the second sheave sets are connected to the head of the boom by a frame (20) and a link (11). See figures 1 and 3.
Glushko teaches that the second left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets are a part of a system to move a load in a true horizontal path while the reach of the crane boom is varied (see Abstract, column 1 lines 27-35, column 1 lines 60-68, column 2 lines 26-37, and column 4 lines 9-53).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Roodenburg by substituting the second left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets, the frame, and the link of Glushko for the second left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets of Roodenburg, to provide structure to the crane to move a load in a true horizontal path while the reach of the crane boom is varied as taught by Glushko, to reduce the horizontal footprint of the second sheave sets as sheave sets having a vertical pivot axes have a reduced horizontal footprint, and/or as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With the modification above, the second luffing cable sheave sets are mounted movable to the head structure, and further allowing a swivelling motion (the horizontal rotational motion of sheaves 5 and 5a, as taught by Glushko) of the second luffing cable sheave sets about (i.e. in the vicinity of, or near) a second essentially horizontal swivel axis (considered at least the horizontal swivel axis of pulley 61a of Roodenburg, see figure 3b).
Regarding claim 14, Roodenburg further shows wherein the crane housing comprises a left-hand boom connector (26a, see figure 2b)and a right-hand boom connector (26b, see figure 2b) at a distance of each other (see figure 2b), together defining a horizontal boom pivot axis (28, see figure 2b); and wherein the distal portion (55, see figure 2a) of the boom is formed integral via a joint structure (54, see figure 2a, and page 18 lines 10-11) with a right-hand boom leg and a left-hand boom leg of equal length (see figure 2a), each of said boom legs having a proximal end portion (53, 53’, and/or 53”, see figure 2b) pivotally connected to the crane housing via the left-hand boom connector and the right-hand boom hand connector (see figure 2b), respectively.
Regarding claim 16, Roodenburg does not explicitly disclose wherein the second luffing cable sheave sets are mounted movable to the head structure, allowing a swivelling motion of the second luffing cable sheave sets about respective second swivel axes having a vertical component and extending perpendicular to the luffing direction.
Glushko et al. (from here on just referred to as Glushko) discloses a luffing crane (see figures 1-3, especially figure 3) comprising second luffing cable sheave sets (5 and 5a, see figure 3) mounted movable to the head structure (as winding and unwinding rope 19 moves the sheave set, see figures 1 and 3) and allowing a swivelling motion (the horizontal rotational motion of sheaves 5 and 5a) of the second luffing cable sheaves sets about respective second swivel axes (considered the swivel axes of sheaves 5 and 5a, see figure 3) having a vertical component (as shown in figures 1 and 3, each of the swivel axes of sheaves 5 and 5a have a vertical component). Glushko further discloses that the second sheave sets are connected to the head of the boom by a frame (20) and a link (11). See figures 1 and 3.
Glushko teaches that the second left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets are a part of a system to move a load in a true horizontal path while the reach of the crane boom is varied (see Abstract, column 1 lines 27-35, column 1 lines 60-68, column 2 lines 26-37, and column 4 lines 9-53).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crane of Roodenburg by substituting the second left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets, the frame, and the link of Glushko for the second left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets of Roodenburg, to provide structure to the crane to move a load in a true horizontal path while the reach of the crane boom is varied as taught by Glushko, to reduce the horizontal footprint of the second sheave sets as sheave sets having a vertical pivot axes have a reduced horizontal footprint, and/or as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With the modification above, the second swivel axes extend perpendicular to the luffing direction (see figures 1 and 3, as taught by Glushko).
Regarding claim 18, Roodenburg further shows that the crane and the vessel are used to handle one or more offshore wind turbine components (see page 1 lines 5-13). The method of operating the apparatus is obvious and no new, non-obvious or improvement claims are described by the method claim since all elements of the Roodenburg in view of Glushko et al. apparatus are disclosed in detail above. As Roodenburg in view of Glushko et al. is obvious to the claimed structure of at least claim 9, the method steps of this claim are implied by Roodenburg in view of Glushko et al.
Regarding claim 19, Roodenburg further shows that the crane and the vessel are used to handle one or more offshore wind turbine components (see page 1 lines 5-13). The method of operating the apparatus is obvious and no new, non-obvious or improvement claims are described by the method claim since all elements of the Roodenburg in view of Glushko et al. apparatus are disclosed in detail above. As Roodenburg in view of Glushko et al. is obvious to the claimed structure of at least claim 17, the method steps of this claim are implied by Roodenburg in view of Glushko et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 26, 2026 (see Remarks REM of 06/26/2026 7 pages) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue:
“As shown in FIG. 2 of Glushko, the auxiliary pulleys 6 and 7 are mounted on shafts 6a and 7a. In more detail, the shafts are the rotation axes about which the pulleys turn to pay out the luffing rope. The shafts are not axes about which the pulley sets swivel relative to the frame. That is, the rotation of pulleys 6 and 7 on the shafts 6a and 7a does not correspond to the claimed "swivelling motion about first swivel axes" as recited in claim 9.
The sole swivelling of Glushko's pulley-carrying brackets 13 and 14 relative to the frame is provided by pivots 15 and 16, and Glushko describes that "the axis 17 of the pivots being parallel to the boom luffing axis 18" (see column 3, lines 8 and 9). An axis parallel to the boom luffing axis is horizontal and lies transverse to the boom in the luffing plane; it has no vertical component. Glushko therefore describes swivelling its sheave sets only about a horizontal axis and not about "first swivel axes having a vertical component."
In addition, the single pivot axis 17 in Glushko that is parallel to the boom luffing axis cannot simultaneously be the claimed horizontal swivel axis of claim 11 and a vertical-component swivel axis of claim 9.
Thus, the applied art does not teach or suggest mounting the first luffing cable sheave sets so as to allow "a swivelling motion of the first luffing cable sheave sets about respective first swivel axes having a vertical component," as recited in claim 9.”
See page 6 lines 6-22 of the Remarks.
The Examiner respectfully does not agree for the following reasons:
First, the arguments is not commensurate with the scope of at least independent claim 9 because claim 9 does not require pulley sets swivelling relative to the frame as argued by the Applicant. As taught by at least figure 3 of Glushko, the rotation of pulleys 6 and 7 are the swivelling motion about first swivel axes of shafts 6a and 7a.
Second, the first swivel axes of shafts 6a and 7a of Glushko (see figures 2-3) have a vertical component, as the axes of shafts 6a and 7a extend out of the pages of figures 2-3.
Applicants argue:
“Glushko concerns in-plane reeving geometry and provides no suggestion to introduce an out-of-plane swivel axis having a vertical component. The claimed vertical-component swivel serves a different purpose and allows allowing proper guidance of the luffing cable over a range of relative positions of the luffing cable with respect to the gantry frame, for example when the head structure is relatively small with respect to the width of the jack-up leg.”, see page 6 lines 25-29.
The Examiner respectfully does not agree for the following reasons:
First, Glushko teaches providing structure to the crane to move a load in a true horizontal path while the reach of the crane boom is varied.
Second, the substitution of the first left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets, the pivots, the brackets, and the arms of Glushko for the first left-hand and right-hand luffing cable sheave sets of Roodenburg (i.e. a simple substitution of one known element for another) is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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