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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, and 14-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/784,709 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that claims 1-2, 4, 7, and 14-16 are included in and can be gleaned from claims 1-13 of Application No. 18/784,709.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claim 14, “a mounting framework” should read ---the mounting framework---.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6-8, 11-13, 16, and 18 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6-7, 11-12, and 16 recites the limitation "the first bracing arm" and “the second bracing arm” in line 2 of claim 6-7 and 11-12, and in lines 3-5 of claim 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 17-18, the phrase "in relation to the second bracing arm beginning with raising the first bracing arm from the second transport unit via the vehicle crane" in lines 21-22 of claim 17 and lines 25-26 of claim 18 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the method limitation involves the steps of transporting the second bracing arm or the first bracing arm. For the purposes of examination, "in relation to the second bracing arm beginning with raising the first bracing arm from the second transport unit via the vehicle crane" is being interpreted as ---in relation to the second bracing arm beginning with raising the second bracing arm from the second transport unit via the vehicle crane---, since the method steps of transporting and installing the first bracing arm is already explained in lines 11-20 of claim 17 and lines 11-24 of claim 18.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the base frame” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected because it is a dependent of claim 7.
Claims 12-13 are rejected because they are dependents of claim 11.
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) 1-4, 9, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Becker (US4660731A).
Regarding claim 1, Becker discloses a mounting framework (25; 72; Figures 2-9) of a vehicle crane, wherein at least one bracing arm (20, 21) of a bracing apparatus (20, 21, 35) of the vehicle crane can be temporarily stored on the mounting framework (25; 72), wherein the mounting framework (25; 724) comprises: precisely one displaceable sliding frame (34; 75; column 5, lines 16-25, column 6, lines 24-45, lifting strut), wherein a single bracing arm (20, 21) can be “indirectly” temporarily stored on the sliding frame (34; 75).
Regarding claim 2, Becker discloses wherein, starting from a receiving position, the sliding frame (34; 75) can be displaced either in a first direction (raised position, dotted line; Figure 9) or in a second direction (lowered position, solid line) opposite to the first direction and can be displaced back again (Figures 8-9).
Regarding claim 3, Becker discloses wherein the sliding frame (34; 75) can be displaced in a mounting direction (vertical displacement) and can be displaced back again, and wherein the sliding frame (34; 75) can be displaced in a mounting direction that extends orthogonally to a longitudinal direction of the mounting framework (25; 72; Figure 9).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Becker discloses wherein the mounting framework (34; 75) comprises a base frame (bottom beam portion of frame 25; Figure 2), an intermediate frame (top plate portion of frame 25) and the sliding frame (34; 75), and wherein the intermediate frame is arranged on the base frame and the sliding frame (34; 75) is arranged in a displaceable manner (in the vertical direction) on the intermediate frame.
Regarding claim 14, Becker discloses wherein the vehicle crane comprises a lower carriage (1; Figure 1) and wherein the mounting framework (34; 75) is fastened to the lower carriage (1) in extension of the lower carriage (1; column 4, line 67 – column 5, line 8; Figures 4 and 9).
Regarding claim 15, Becker discloses wherein the mounting framework (34; 75) is supported on a ground surface via support legs (Figure 3, frame 34;75 includes legs that extend and retract (retracted state shown) at the far right behind the tires of the transport vehicle to support the framework onto the ground surface) at a rear end remote from the lower carriage (1).
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Willim (US7686174B2).
Regarding claim 16, Becker discloses wherein the vehicle crane further comprises a superstructure (5; Figures 1-2) and a telescoping jib (26), wherein the telescoping jib (26) comprises a basic box (27) with retractable and extendible inner boxes (28, 29, 30), and wherein the bracing apparatus (20, 21, 35) having the first bracing arm (20, 21) can be attached to the telescoping jib, but fails to teach the second bracing arm can be attached to the telescoping jib and, for attachment purposes, the first bracing arm and the second bracing arm can be placed on the mounting framework one after the other.
Willim teaches a similar mounting framework and further teaches the second bracing arm (second guy 6; Figures 1 and 4) can be attached to the telescoping jib and, for attachment purposes, the first bracing arm (first guy 6) and the second bracing arm (second guy 6) can be placed on the mounting framework (9, 10; 34 of Becker) one after the other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mounting framework of Becker to include the mounting framework as taught by Willim in order allow to for additional storage locations for multiple parts of the crane for further teardown and improve efficiency of assembly/disassembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, and 10 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.
Claims 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Claims 5 and 10 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 intermediate frame and the sliding frame can be jointly detached from the base frame and, after a rotation, can then be fastened to the base frame such that, starting from a fully retracted receiving position, the sliding frame can be displaced only in a second direction opposite to the first direction and can be displaced back again.
Becker is the closest prior art and further teaches wherein the intermediate frame and the sliding frame form a structural unit, but fails to teach wherein the intermediate frame and the sliding frame can be jointly detached from the base frame and, after a rotation, can then be fastened to the base frame such that, starting from a fully retracted receiving position, the sliding frame can be displaced only in a second direction opposite to the first direction and can be displaced back again.
Claim 7 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 a first storage location for the first bracing arm and a second storage location for the second bracing arm are arranged on the sliding frame.
Becker is the closest prior art and further teaches wherein a first storage location for the first bracing arm is arranged on the sliding frame. Willim teaches a second storage location (second support 9; Figure 4) for the second bracing arm (second guy 6) arranged on the mounting framework (9, 10), however, both Becker and Willim fail to teach wherein a first storage location for the first bracing arm and a second storage location for the second bracing arm are arranged on the sliding frame.
Claims 17 and 18 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 providing a second transport unit having a bracing apparatus, which is received thereon and includes a first bracing arm and a second bracing arm, in the region of the vehicle crane; raising the first bracing arm from the second transport unit by means of the vehicle crane; detaching the intermediate frame and the sliding frame jointly as a structural unit from the base frame, rotating the structural unit and fastening it to the base frame such that, starting from a fully retracted receiving position, the sliding frame can be displaced only in a second direction opposite to the first direction and can be displaced back again; repeating the aforementioned steps in relation to the second bracing arm beginning with raising the [first] second bracing arm from the second transport unit via the vehicle crane and in relation to a second storage location on the sliding frame and a second direction.
Becker teaches a method for mounting a bracing apparatus on a telescoping jib of a vehicle crane, comprising: providing a first transport unit having a mounting framework, received thereon, in the region of the vehicle crane; positioning the mounting framework in extension of a lower carriage of the vehicle crane; fastening the mounting framework to the lower carriage and detaching the vehicle crane from the mounting framework; lowering the first bracing arm of the bracing apparatus onto a sliding frame of the mounting framework at a first storage location via the vehicle crane; displacing the sliding frame in a first direction from a receiving position to a laterally extended lowering position; displacing the sliding frame in the mounting direction and in the direction opposite to the first direction from its lowering position to a central fastening position, in which a fastening frame of the telescoping jib abuts against a basic box of the telescoping jib. Dieleman (US9919637B1) teaches a similar mounting framework and further teaches raising the mounting framework (28; Figure 34) from the first transport unit (800; Figure 23) via the vehicle crane (500). Backes (US11161722B2) teaches a similar method for mounting a bracing apparatus (9; Figure 1) and further teaches raising the mounting framework (10, 17; Figure 4) from the first transport unit (8) via the vehicle crane (1; Figure 3); luffing the telescoping jib down next to the first bracing arm (3); fastening the first bracing arm (11) with its fastening frame (10) to the basic box (4). However, the prior art fails to teach providing a second transport unit having a bracing apparatus, which is received thereon and includes a first bracing arm and a second bracing arm, in the region of the vehicle crane; raising the first bracing arm from the second transport unit by means of the vehicle crane; detaching the intermediate frame and the sliding frame jointly as a structural unit from the base frame, rotating the structural unit and fastening it to the base frame such that, starting from a fully retracted receiving position, the sliding frame can be displaced only in a second direction opposite to the first direction and can be displaced back again; repeating the aforementioned steps in relation to the second bracing arm beginning with raising the [first] second bracing arm from the second transport unit via the vehicle crane and in relation to a second storage location on the sliding frame and a second direction.
Claim 6 would be allowable because it is a dependent of claim 5.
Claim 8 would be allowable because it is a dependent of claim 7.
Claims 11-13 would be allowable because they are dependents of claim 10.
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.
/HENRIX SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights