DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosberg (U.S. 20140190919) in view of Costruit (EP 1862422).
In re Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9, Rosberg teaches, gantry crane comprising a frame (10) having at least three first members (13,23,51,52) extending parallel to a first plane (XY - upper horizontal plane defined by member (13,23,51,52)) and each first member including a first end portion and an opposite second end portion, each of the first and second end portions of one of the first members being connected to another respective first member; The examiner notes that the term portion is broad and can mean any section or area. The end portions of the first members would mean any section on opposite ends of the first members. These end portions are connected to each other.
Rosberg teaches a rail (35) supported by the frame and extending parallel to the first plane (XY), and on which a lifting device (40) for lifting a mechanical part is mounted for movement. As was noted above, the term hinged is not clear in the claim and the specification indicates the lifting device involves movement by trolley along a rail. As such, the examiner notes that the hoist (40) moves by motors/trolleys (31,32,49). Therefore, they are hinged for longitudinal movement as much as the applicant’s invention. Regarding longitudinal movement, members (13,23) could be said to extend in a longitudinal direction and trolleys/motors (31,32) movement the hoist in that direction. The examiner notes that the trolley (49) movement of the hoist would involve movement in a longitudinal direction if the members (51,52) were longer than members (13,23). Such a change in size would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention since changes in size, shape, and proportion which have been held to involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137; In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402. Shortening members (13,23) or lengthening members (51,52) could be needed to meet the spatial needs of where the plane is being employed.
Rosberg teaches at least three second members (12a,12b,22a,22b) extending between a first end portion/top and an opposite second end portion bottom the first end portion of each second member being hinged to rotate on the frame at joints (14c,14d) about an axis parallel to the first plane (XY).
Rosberg teaches second member (12a) further being connected to the frame either directly or indirectly by means (17) for rigid connection and for continuous rotational movement/hydraulic piston of the second member relative to the frame each second member being rotatable between a first position in which the second member) forms an angle of less than 90 degrees with the first planes and a second position in which the second member (12a) is substantially perpendicular to the first plane (XY). The four first members and four second members are arranged so as to form a generally cubic structure. (Figures 1-7b)
Rosberg does not teach that each second member (12a) further being connected to the frame either directly or indirectly by means for rigid connection and for continuous rotational movement of the second member relative to the frame each second member being rotatable between a first position in which the second member) forms an angle of less than 90 degrees with the first planes and a second position in which the second member is substantially perpendicular to the first plane (XY).
Costruit teaches a gantry crane with a frame (1) and each second member (2,5,6) is further being connected to the frame (1) by means (3,4) for rigid connection and for continuous rotational movement/hydraulic piston of the second member relative to the frame, each second member being rotatable between a first position in which the second member forms an angle of less than 90 degrees with the first planes and a second position in which the second member is substantially perpendicular to the first plane (XY). The piston (3,4) under pressure establishes a rigid connection. (Figures 1-4)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify each second member with a piston, as disclosed by Costruit as this would allow the crane to be evenly erected at multiple pivoting joints rather than focusing all of the force and stress at just one pivoting joint. In the combination, the means for rigid connection and continuous rotational movement/pistons are located each second member and are independent of the means for rigid connection and continuous rotational movement/pistons of the other second members.
In re Claims 9, under the principles of combination, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would obviously perform or be made by the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out or being made by the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will obviously perform or be made by the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In re Claim 3, the modified Rosberg has been previously discussed but does not teach that the means for rigid connection and continuous rotational movement comprise a rack and pinion winch connected to each second member. This examiner takes official notice that hydraulic pistons and rack and pinion wenches are both well know actuators and that is would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for another. A rack in pinion wench can be manual adjusted and does not require hydraulic pressure or fluid.
In re Claim 6, Rosberg modified by Costruit has been previously discussed. Costruit teaches that the second end portion/bottom of each second member (2,5,6) comprises a rolling element (6,R). (Figures 1-4)
In re Claim 7, the modified Rosberg has been previously discussed. The examiner first notes that anything assembles can be disassembles . Therefore, these connections can be broken down and disconnected. For instance, wherein the first members (13,23) are joined to the second members (12 with pivot joints (14a-14d) Such joints typically use pin connections). The rail (35), and the means (40,46) for rigid connection and continuous movement each form a unit part are joined to the gantry with trolley (31,32,49) are also removable connections. (Figures 1-7b)
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosberg (U.S. 20140190919) in view of Costruit (EP 1862422), and in further view of Gobert (U.S. 20130343849).
In re Claim 4, 5 and 10, the modified Rosberg has been previously discussed but does not teach a plurality of stiffeners (46), each stiffener connecting one of the first members (32) to one of the second members (34).
Gobert gantry crane (10) with a frame (22) a plurality of stiffeners (28), each stiffener connecting one of the first members (24) to one of the second members (26). This occurs once the second member is substantially perpendicular to the first plane (XY) which is the second position. The second end portion/bottom portion of each second member comprises a raising member (adjustable telescoping bottom portion below channel member 26). (Paragraph 0058 I the combination, this will move the respective second member substantially perpendicularly to the first plane (XY) when the second members (34) are in the second position which again in when the second member is substantially perpendicular to the first plane (XY). Figures 1-10)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rosberg with Gobert. This allows for a height adjustment of the second members while bracing them at the top against the frame.
In re Claim 10, under the principles of combination, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would obviously perform or be made by the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out or being made by the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will obviously perform or be made by the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the Roseberg reference teaches a crane that is designed to remain still once deployed. The examiner maintains that the Roseberg reference still meets the claim requirements. The second member (12a) are connected to the frame either directly or indirectly by means (17) for rigid connection and for continuous rotational movement/hydraulic piston of the second member relative to the frame. The second member are rotatable between a first position in which the second member) forms an angle of less than 90 degrees with the first planes and a second position in which the second member (12a) is substantially perpendicular to the first plane (XY).
The applicant argues that the combination of the Rosberg and Costruit references are not obvious because Construit describes a mobile transport claim white the Roseberg crane remains still and locked once installed. The examiner maintains that while certainly mobile, Costruit is still directed to a crane. Furthermore, the mobility of the crane does not disqualify the teaching of each second member (2,5,6) being connected to the frame (1) by means (3,4) for rigid connection and for continuous rotational movement/hydraulic piston of the second member relative to the frame. The second member are rotatable between a first position in which the second member forms an angle of less than 90 degrees with the first planes and a second position in which the second member is substantially perpendicular to the first plane (XY). The piston (3,4) under pressure establishes a rigid connection.
The motivation to combine would allow the crane to be evenly erected at multiple pivoting joints rather than focusing all of the force and stress at just one pivoting joint. In the combination, the means for rigid connection and continuous rotational movement/pistons are located each second member and are independent of the means for rigid connection and continuous rotational movement/pistons of the other second members.
The applicant argues that the Roseberg reference does not teach erecting a crane on uneven terrain without foundations. However, this limitation is not found in the claim The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach independent angle management. It is not clear what is mean by this argument however the positively claimed angular limitations of the of the second members have been addressed in the above rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571) 272-6754. 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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights