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 .
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 20250033936 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference claim 14 requires each and every particular of instant claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 13 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.
Claim 13 lines 8-9 recite “the lower carriage,” which has unclear antecedent basis. Claim 13 requires “a lower carriage” twice (lines 6 and 8). To which lower carriage does this limitation (spanning lines 8-9) have reference? It is suggested to change the second recitation (line 8) of “a lower carriage” to “the lower carriage” since it doesn’t appear that Applicant intended to claim two separate lower carriages.
Claim 13 (5th line from the bottom) recites “its lowering position,” which is vague and ambiguous. What does “its” reference? The antecedent is unclear.
Claim 13 (second to last line) recites “its fastening frame,” which is vague and ambiguous. What does “its” reference? The antecedent is unclear.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210292136 A1 (hereinafter “Meissner”).
Regarding claim 1 Meissner discloses a vehicle crane comprising:
a lower carriage (C; see annotated fig. 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
317
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a mounting framework (13) comprising at least one displaceable sliding frame (F, see annotated figure 11 below; i.e. the inner telescoping portion which slides out of 13);
PNG
media_image2.png
269
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a bracing apparatus (7);
wherein at least one bracing arm (7) of the bracing apparatus (7) can be temporarily stored (at least partially) on the mounting framework (13), and
wherein a single bracing arm (7) can be temporarily stored on the sliding frame (F), and
wherein the mounting framework (13) is arranged in extension of the lower carriage (C) of the vehicle crane (e.g. see fig. 11) and completely behind the lower carriage (C) and is fastened (via the bracing arm and the boom) to the lower carriage (C).
Regarding claim 2 Meissner discloses the above crane, and further discloses wherein the mounting framework (13) is supported (at least indirectly) on a ground surface (see fig. 1) via support legs (wheels) at (near) a rear end of the mounting framework (13) remote from the lower carriage (C) and is coupled (at least indirectly via the boom and bracing arm), at an opposite front end (at 14), to a rear end of the lower carriage (C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-12 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.
Claim 13 is 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: the prior art of record fails to anticipate or make obvious the entire combination of claim recitations set forth in any of claims 3, 6, 9, or 13. Specifically, these claims require:
[Claims 3 and 6] wherein the at least one displaceable sliding frame comprises a first sliding frame and a second sliding frame, and wherein the mounting framework further comprises a base frame and an intermediate frame, wherein the intermediate frame is arranged on the base frame and the first and second sliding frames are arranged on the intermediate frame in such a manner as to be displaceable independently of one another.
[Claim 9] wherein a single one of the first bracing arm and the second bracing arm can be temporarily stored on the sliding frame, and wherein the first bracing arm and the second bracing arm can be placed on the mounting framework one after the other. (In conjunction with the other claim limitations.)
[Claim 13] 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; raising the mounting framework from the first transport unit via the vehicle crane; positioning the mounting framework in extension of a lower carriage of the vehicle crane; fastening the mounting framework to a lower carriage and completely behind the lower carriage and detaching the vehicle crane from the mounting framework; providing a second transport unit having a bracing apparatus; displacing the first/second sliding frames in a first/second direction of a mounting direction from a retracted receiving position to a laterally extended lowering position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such references show various forms of apparatus which comprise at least one similar feature to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time.
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 P 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.
/NATHANIEL L ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights