DETAILED ACTION
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
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 because of the following informalities.
The views shown in Figs. 8B and 8C are obscured by dark grey and solid black shading. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (m).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
CLAIMS 1-5, 14, 15, 17, 18 AND 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baraniak (EP 0296047 A1).
CLAIM 1 Baraniak ‘047 (“Baraniak”) shows a jib assembly comprising:
an outer section (35) having a hollow outer body;
a middle section (34) having a hollow middle body and positioned coaxially with the outer section and located partially inside the outer section (35);
an inner section (33) having a hollow inner body and positioned coaxially with the middle section, and located partially inside the middle section (34); and
a stroke cylinder (1, 7 and 12, collectively) having a cylinder base (1) and a piston end (12)(cls. 3, 4),
wherein the stroke cylinder is configured to move simultaneously the inner section from inside of the middle section and to move the middle section from inside of the outer section.
Baraniak fails to teach the cylinder base connected to the outer section and the piston end connected to the inner section. It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art jib assembly such that the stroke cylinder would have been positioned with the cylinder base connected to a base wall of the outer section and the piston end would have been connected to a tip portion of the inner section, since such a modification would have amounted to a rearrangement of parts, which has been held to be within the ordinary skill level of skill. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation for making the modification would have been to connect the piston end to the lighter load of the tip portion (33) for more efficient operation of the stroke cylinder.
CLAIM 2 In Baraniak, the stroke cylinder (1, 7, 12) is operated by a regeneration valve (24) located on an outer external surface of the outer section (35), the regeneration valve being connected to the stroke cylinder via a first tube (28) and a second tube (29).
CLAIM 3 In Baraniak, the stroke cylinder (1, 7, 12) is operated by a regeneration valve (24) integral to cylinder hydraulic ports.
CLAIM 4 The jib assembly of Baraniak is configured to be operated by a hydraulic regenerative valve (24) operated by a main control valve.1
CLAIM 5 Baraniak shows the piston end connected to the jib section by flange and pins (41). However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have connected the piston end to the tip portion of the inner section (33) with a piston pin positioned perpendicularly to the stroke cylinder, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the use of piston pins for transferring pushing and pulling force to extend and retract sections of a telescoping member. The motivation for making the modification would have been to use a relatively more stable means of connection; i.e., a connection formed by pins aligned with the pushing and pulling force would weaken with repeated use of the stroke cylinder.
CLAIM 14 The jib assembly of Baraniak further comprises plurality of outer wear pads (37, 39) positioned between the outer section (35) and the middle section (34), and a plurality of inner wear pads (36, 38) positioned between the inner section and the middle section (translation, [0019]).
CLAIM 15 The outer wear pads (37, 39) and the inner wear pads (36, 38) are impact resistant (inherently) but are not impregnated with a lubricator. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have impregnated the outer and inner wear pads of Barniak with a lubricator, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the practice as useful for maintaining reduced friction between moving parts. The motivation for making the modification would have been to provide means for keeping the jib assembly in working order.
CLAIM 17 Baraniak discloses use of the jib assembly with a crane (translation, [0021]) but to teach expressly a knuckle boom loader. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the jib assembly of Baraniak in a knuckle boom loader. The motivation for making the modification would have been to extend the reach of the loader over obstacles.
CLAIMS 18 AND 20 The method steps recited therein are inherent to use of jib assembly taught by Baraniak, as applied above to CLAIM 1.
CLAIM 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baraniak (EP 0296047 A1), as modified above to address the limitations of CLAIM 1, and further in view of Lines (AU 600100 B2).
CLAIM 12 Baraniak fails to teach rectangular cross sections.
Lines ‘100 (“Lines”) discloses a jib assembly (14) comprising an outer section (39), a middle section (41) and an inner section (42), each section having a rectangular cross-section (p. 7, ll. 8-11). It would have been an obvious design choice for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the jib cross-sections in rectangular form, as suggested by Lines. The motivation for making the modification would have been to configure the jib sections to withstand high bending stress, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baraniak (EP 0296047 A1) and Lines (AU 600100 B2) as applied above to CLAIM 12, and further in view of Eddens (US 4,604,785 A).
CLAIM 13 Neither Baraniak nor Lines teaches two sheets of material and two weld joints.
Eddens ‘785 (“Eddens”) teaches expressly the construction of a hollow structural member (14) from two sheets of material (1a, 1b) having two weld joints (4)(Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the outer section, middle section, and inner section of the jib assembly from two sheets of material joined by two welds, as suggested by Eddens. The motivation for making the modification would have been ease of assembly with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
CLAIMS 6-11, 16 AND 19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571)272-8322. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
02 September 2026
1 CLAIM 4 only requires the jib assembly to be configured, or structured, for operation by a hydraulic regeneration valve; thus, the scope of the claimed invention is exclusive of the hydraulic regeneration valve and main valve.
Prosecution Insights