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
Claims 1, 14, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 11 of claim 1, “at a different distance” should read ---at a different strand distance---.
In line 1 of claim 14, “having” should be removed.
In lines 3 and 12 of claim 14 and lines 3 and 5 of claim 18, “trolly” should read ---trolley---.
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 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:
“load-bearing means” in lines 9-10 of claim 1 and lines 8-9 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 § 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 14-18 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the tackle support" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15-18 are rejected because they are dependents of claim 14.
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) 1-3, 8-13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Casteran (FR2253699A1).
Regarding claim 1, Casteran discloses lifting gear (M; Figures 1-4) having comprising :a hoist cable (4, 4a); a tackle support (2); a bottom block (3); and a strand-distance guide (13, 14); wherein: the hoist cable (4, 4a) descends in at least two cable strands from the tackle support (2); the bottom block (3) is reeved on the hoist cable (4, 4a) and on which a load-bearing means (attachment of the container C to the bottom block 3) is fitted; the cable strands of the hoist cable (4, 4a) are at a different distance apart from one another at the bottom block (3) than at the tackle support (2); the strand-distance guide (13, 14) is between the bottom block (3) and the tackle support (2) and is configured for: compensating for the different strand distances at the bottom block (3) and at the tackle support (2); and guiding the cable strands: substantially parallel to one another on one side of the strand-distance guide (13, 14; cables are parallel below the guide 13,14) and splayed apart in a V shape in relation to one another on the opposite side of the strand-distance guide (13, 14; cables are formed in a V shape above the guide 13,14).
Regarding claim 2, Casteran discloses wherein the strand-distance guide (13, 14) is further configured to at least one of: be reeving-free (idler pulleys 13a, 13b); or transmit to the hoist cable (4, 4a) substantially only forces which are directed transversely to a virtual connecting line between the tackle support (2) and the bottom block (3).
Regarding claim 3, Casteran discloses wherein the strand-distance guide (13, 14) is suspended in an oscillating manner from the tackle support (2) by means of a pendulum suspension (18a, 18b).
Regarding claim 8, Casteran discloses wherein the strand-distance guide (13, 14) is further configured to maintain the cable strands at a strand distance from each other, from the strand-distance guide (13, 14) to the bottom block (3), which substantially corresponds to the strand distance at the bottom block (3).
Regarding claim 9, Casteran discloses wherein the strand-distance guide (13, 14) has two cable guide elements (13a; 13b) spaced apart from one another, which are or can be brought into contact with sides of the cable strands running between the cable guide elements (13a; 13b) that face away from one another.
Regarding claim 10, Casteran discloses wherein the cable guide elements (13a; 13b) define a clear width therebetween that substantially corresponds to at least one of: the strand distance at the bottom block (3).
Regarding claim 11, Casteran discloses wherein the cable guide elements (13a; 13b) are configured to be cable pulleys having mutually parallel pulley rotation axes (the rotation axes of both pulleys 13a are parallel, similar for pulleys 13b), which extend transversely to a virtual plane spanned by the cable strands.
Regarding claim 12, Casteran discloses wherein the strand-distance guide (13, 14) comprises a cable yoke (18a, 18b, 17) embracing the cable strands from opposite outer sides for limiting and/or reducing the strand distance of the cable strands passing through the cable yoke (18a, 18b, 17) to a strand distance that substantially corresponds to the strand distance at the bottom block (3).
Regarding claim 13, Casteran discloses wherein the tackle support (2) is configured as a trolley which is mounted so as to be movable along a jib (V; Figure 1) of the lifting gear (M).
Regarding claim 19, Casteran discloses wherein the lifting gear (M) is configured to be a crane selected from the group consisting of a port loading crane (Abstract).
Claim(s) 14-18 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evans (GB722703A).
Regarding claim 14, Evans discloses a lifting gear having comprising: a hoist cable (45; Figure 1); a trolly (35); and a bottom block (37); wherein: the hoist cable (45) descends in at least two cable strands from the trolley (35); the bottom block (37) is reeved on the hoist cable (45) and on which a load-bearing means (hook on block 37) is fitted; the cable strands of the hoist cable (45) are at a different strand distance apart from one another at the bottom block (37) than at the trolly (35) such that the cable strands of the hoist cable (45) between the bottom block (37) and the tackle support (trolley 35) run splayed apart in a V-shape.
Regarding claim 15, Evans discloses wherein a course of the V-shaped course widens upwards from the bottom block (37) to the tackle support (trolley 35).
Regarding claim 16, Evans discloses wherein the bottom block (37) is configured to be single-axis and/or single-roll and has at least one deflection pulley (single pulley on block 37) for reeving the hoist cable (45), which is looped around by the hoist cable (45) over a looping angle of approximately 180°.
Regarding claim 17, Evans discloses wherein the diameter of the deflection pulley defines the strand distance at the bottom block (37; the hoist cable 45 loops directly around the pulley, in which the strand distance is equal to the diameter of the pulley).
Regarding claim 18, Evans discloses wherein the trolley (35) is provided on a jib (28; Figure 1) which can be luffed up into different steep positions (pulley system 32,33 adjusts the operating position of the jib 28; Figures 1 and 5 show different steep positions); and the trolly (35) defines different strand distances for the hoist cable (45) descending in the cable strands, depending on the steep position of the jib (28; as shown in Figures 1 and 5, different steep angles change the horizontal distance between pulleys 36).
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) 4-5 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casteran.
Regarding claims 4 and 20-21, Casteran discloses wherein the tackle support (2) is a trolley; the strand-distance guide (13, 14) is arranged in at least an upper area of a maximum lowering depth of the load-bearing means (attachment of the container C), which is measured from the tackle support (2) to the load-bearing means; and the strand-distance guide is arranged below the tackle support (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting gear of Casteran to include wherein the strand-distance guide is arranged in at least an upper quarter of a maximum lowering depth of the load-bearing means; wherein the strand-distance guide is arranged in an upper tenth of the maximum lowering depth of the load- bearing means; and wherein the strand-distance guide is arranged directly at or directly below the tackle support in order to provide ideal sway control for improved bottom block stabilization. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Casteran discloses wherein the strand-distance guide (13, 14) has a distance from the tackle support (2) that is less than the strand distance at the tackle support (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting gear of Casteran to include wherein the strand-distance guide has a distance from the tackle support that is less than 200% of the strand distance at the tackle support in order to ensure proper engagement of the cables with the guide pulleys to provide ideal sway control of the bottom block while preventing damage to the cables and guide pulleys. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casteran in view of Tax (DE4416707A1).
Regarding claim 6, Casteran discloses the above lifting gear, but fails to teach wherein the strand-distance guide is rigidly fastened to the tackle support.
Tax teaches a similar lifting gear and further teaches wherein the strand-distance guide (164h, 150h; Figure 10) is rigidly fastened to the tackle support (22h). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting gear of Casteran to include the strand-distance guide as taught by Tax in order to provide a stiffer guide to further reduce swaying movement of the hoisting cable.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casteran in view of Springer (DD48010A1).
Regarding claim 7, Casteran discloses the above lifting gear, but fails to teach wherein the strand-distance guide is detachably mounted on the tackle support between and/or at the level of two deflection pulleys of the tackle support for deflecting the hoist cable.
Springer teaches a similar lifting gear and further teaches wherein the strand-distance guide (13; 14; Figure 1) is detachably mounted on the tackle support (1; page 3, lines 29-30) between two deflection pulleys (ends of 3 or 7) of the tackle support (1) for deflecting the hoist cable (4; 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting gear of Casteran to include the detachable strand-distance guide as taught by Springer in order to provide a stiffer guide to reduce swaying movement of the hoisting cable during tackle support transport and further allow for guide stowage.
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
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights