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.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, “A derrick ballast for a crane” should read ---The derrick ballast for 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:
“retaining element” in line 10 of claim 1.
“first connecting means” in line 10 of claim 1.
“second connecting means” in line 11 of claim 1.
“at least four retaining elements” in lines 1-2 of claim 2.
“locking means” in line 3 of claim 3.
“stop means” in line 2 of claim 12.
“first fastening means” in line 2 of claim 14.
“second fastening means” in lines 2-3 of claim 14.
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 § 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, 11-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Norz (US10961088B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Norz discloses a crane (100; Figure 3), comprising an undercarriage (below uppercarriage 102), an uppercarriage (102) mounted rotatably on the undercarriage, a boom (106) connected to the uppercarriage (102) in a luffing manner, a derrick boom (101) connected to the uppercarriage (102) in an articulated manner, via which the boom (106) is braced, a guide (11, 12) connected to the uppercarriage (102), and a derrick ballast (2), wherein the derrick ballast (2) comprises at least two ballast elements (21, 22; Figures 1a-2a) which are configured to be stacked on top of one another to form a stack of ballast elements (SBM; see Norz annotated Figure 1a below) and a cross member (CM) which is connected to the derrick boom (101) via a ballast bracing (501) and to the uppercarriage (102) via the guide (11, 12), wherein the cross member (CM) is configured to be connected to the stack of ballast elements (SBM) via a retaining element (RE), wherein the retaining element (RE) comprises first connecting means (1CM) for releasably connecting the retaining element (RE) to second connecting means (2CM) of at least one ballast element (ballast base plate 21) of the at least two ballast elements (21, 22) of the stack of ballast elements (SBM) and is configured in such a way that by moving the retaining element (RE) and/or the cross member (CM) relative to the stack of ballast elements (SBM), while the stack of ballast elements (SBM) is uncoupled from the retaining element (RE), the retaining element (RE) is configured to be connected to a partial stack of ballast elements of the stack of ballast elements (SBM; Figure 2a).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Norz, Annotated Figure 1a
Regarding claim 11, Norz discloses wherein the derrick ballast (2) comprises a ballast base plate (21) on which further ballast elements (FBE; see Norz annotated Figure 1a above) are configured to be mounted, wherein the cross member (CM) with or without the at least two ballast elements (21, 22) attached thereto is configured to be detachably connected to the ballast base plate (21).
Regarding claim 12, Norz discloses wherein the derrick ballast (2) comprises a coupling part (500, 502; Figure 4), which is connected or connectable to the cross member (CM) and comprises stop means (500), to which the ballast bracing (501) is configured to be fastened, wherein the coupling part (500, 502) is connected to the guide (11, 12).
Regarding claim 13, Norz discloses wherein the coupling part (500, 502) is connected to the guide (11, 12) so as to be pivotable about a horizontal pivot axis (pivotable about pin 500).
Regarding claim 14, Norz discloses wherein the cross member (CM) comprises first fastening means (first connecting means 1CM) which are configured to be releasably connected to second fastening means (second connecting means 2CM) of the ballast base plate (21; Figure 3 shows ballast assembly 22 is fastened to base plate 21 to lift both 21 and 22 together; Figure 2 shows that ballast assembly 22 can be releasably connected to base plate 21 to lift individually).
Regarding claim 15, Norz discloses wherein the ballast base plate (21) comprises a central receiving region (area where ballast assembly 22 is placed and connected), to which the cross member (CM) is configured to be fastened and on which the stack of ballast elements (SBM) connected to the cross member (CM) is configured to be deposited, wherein the ballast base plate (21) comprises depositing surfaces on both sides of the central receiving region, on which further ballast elements (FBE) are configured to be deposited.
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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norz in view of Reymond (EP2692682A1).
Regarding claim 7, Norz discloses the above crane, but fails to teach wherein the retaining element is configured as a chain or rope or comprises such a chain or rope.
Reymond teaches a similar crane and further teaches wherein the retaining element (11; Figures 1-2) is configured as a rope or comprises such a rope. 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 Norz to include the rope retaining element as taught by Reymond in order to provide slack of the retaining element to ease handling for the operator.
Regarding claim 8, Norz discloses the above crane and further teaches wherein the derrick ballast (2) is configured such that the at least two ballast elements (21, 22) attached to the cross member are located below the cross member (CM), but fails to teach wherein the cross member has a substantially rectangular shape in a plan view.
Reymond teaches a similar crane and further teaches wherein the cross member (1; Figures 1-2) has a substantially rectangular shape in a plan view (cables 11 and crossmember 9 form a rectangular shape). 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 Norz to include the cross member as taught by Reymond in order to distribute the weight of the ballast elements over a wider area for safer and more efficient handling.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norz.
Regarding claims 9-10, Norz discloses the above crane and further teaches wherein the cross member (CM) comprises a tubular structure. 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 Norz to include a cross member comprising a steel structure in order to safely lift heavy ballast elements. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 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 derrick ballast comprises at least four retaining elements configured to be connected to the second connecting means on sides of the at least two ballast elements.
Norz teaches the above crane and further teaches wherein the derrick ballast comprises at least four retaining elements configured to be connected to the second connecting means of the at least two ballast elements, but fails to teach wherein the derrick ballast comprises at least four retaining elements configured to be connected to the second connecting means on sides of the at least two ballast elements, wherein the at least four retaining elements are arranged at four corner regions of the cross member in plan view. Reymond teaches a similar crane and further teaches wherein the at least four retaining elements are arranged at four corner regions of the cross member in plan view, but fails to teach wherein the derrick ballast comprises at least four retaining elements configured to be connected to the second connecting means on sides of the at least two ballast elements.
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 retaining element is adjustably mounted on the cross member, displaceable in a vertical direction, and is configured to be fixed in at least two different positions on the cross member via locking means.
Norz is the closest prior art and further teaches wherein the retaining element projects downwards from the cross member, but fails to teach wherein the retaining element is adjustably mounted on the cross member, displaceable in a vertical direction, and is configured to be fixed in at least two different positions on the cross member via locking means.
Claim 16 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including for disclosing wherein, by a translational movement of the retaining element relative to the second connecting means, a part of the first connecting means previously associated with a first number of ballast elements of the stack of ballast elements is configured to be brought into overlap or engagement with the second connecting means of a second number of ballast elements of the stack of ballast elements.
Jiao (CN207877158U) is the closest prior art and further teaches wherein the second connecting means of the at least two ballast elements of the stack of ballast elements, which are configured to be connected to the first connecting means of the retaining element, are located on a common straight line, which extends parallel and, in a connected state, coaxially to a longitudinal axis of the retaining element, but fails to teach wherein, by a translational movement of the retaining element relative to the second connecting means, a part of the first connecting means previously associated with a first number of ballast elements of the stack of ballast elements is configured to be brought into overlap or engagement with the second connecting means of a second number of ballast elements of the stack of ballast elements.
Claims 4-6 would be allowable because they are dependents of claim 3.
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