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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 16, 19 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (hereinafter Ogawa, US 2019/0256328 A1) in view of Felps et al. (hereinafter Felps, US 2019/0292026 A1).
For claim 1, Ogawa discloses a method (Fig. 1 of Ogawa discloses a method for lifting and lower a load – see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0009]-[0010]) comprising:
operating a lifting mechanism drive, during an initial phase, with an initially reduced tightening torque for tensioning a lifting means (Figs. 1, 5C and 5F of Ogawa disclose operating a lifting mechanism drive 8, during an initial phase, with an initially reduced tightening torque for tensioning a lifting means 2 during time t2-t3 – see Ogawa, Figs. 1, 5C and 5F; paragraphs [0019] and [0066]); and
operating a lifting mechanism drive, during a further phase, with a higher tightening torque (Figs. 1 and 5C, 5F of Ogawa disclose operating a lifting mechanism drive 8, during a further phase, with a higher tightening torque – see Ogawa, Figs. 1-2 and 5C, paragraphs [0064]-[0065]).
Ogawa discloses operating the lifting mechanism drive which is silent, during the initial phase, the initial value of the maximum torque is greater than a load-free lifting resistance torque resulting from inherent resistances of the lifting mechanism, but less than a load lifting torque required for lifting the load.
However, Felps discloses operating the lifting mechanism drive, during an initial phase, with an initially value of the maximum torque is greater than a load-free lifting resistance torque resulting from inherent resistances of the lifting mechanism, but less than a load lifting torque required for lifting the load (Figs. 1 and 4 of Felps disclose operating the lifting mechanism drive 22/426, during an initial phase, with an initially value of the maximum torque is greater than a load-free lifting resistance torque resulting from inherent resistances of the lifting mechanism 428, but less than a load lifting torque required for lifting the load – see Felps, Figs. 1 and 4, paragraphs [0020]-[0021] and [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Ogawa to incorporate teaching of Felps for purpose of reducing damage to the winch system.
wherein, in the initial phase, the reduced tightening torque of the lifting mechanism drive is automatically limited by a control device to an initial value of a maximum torque which is greater than a load-free lifting resistance torque due to inherent resistances of a lifting mechanism for lifting a load, but less than a load lifting torque required for lifting the load (see Ogawa, Figs. 2 and 4-5, paragraphs [0064]; and see Felps, Figs. 1, 2A, and 4, paragraphs [0021], [0026], [0028] and [0040]); and
wherein, in the further phase, when the load acting on the lifting mechanism increases due to the tensioning of the lifting means and/or a drive speed of the lifting mechanism drive decreases, the value of the maximum torque is increased to the higher tightening torque and/or the rate of change of the speed of the lifting mechanism drive is limited to a maximum tightening acceleration (see Ogawa, Figs. 2 and 4-5, paragraphs [0064]; and see Felps, Figs. 1 and 4, paragraphs [0020], [0029] and [0031]).
For claim 2, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the load acting on the lifting mechanism is determined by a load-determining device (Fig. 1 of Ogawa discloses the load 4 acting on the lifting mechanism 2,3, 5 is determined by a load-determining device 15-17 – see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraph [0028]).
For claim 3, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose the method according to claim 2, wherein:
in the further phase for tightening:
the maximum torque is adjusted by the control device (Fig. 1 of Ogawa in view Figs. 1, 2A and 4 of Felps disclose the maximum torque which is adjusted by Ogawa’s control device 12/Felps’ control device 18/727 – see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0027] and [0032]; and see Felps, Figs. 1, 2A, and 4, paragraphs [0028]-[0031] and [0045]);
the maximum torque is continuously adjusted by the control device (see Felps, Figs. 1 and 2A, paragraphs [0028]-[0031]); or
the maximum torque is increased by the control device (see Felps, Figs. 1 and 2A, paragraphs [0028]-[0031]); and
further in the further phase for tightening:
the maximum torque is adjusted to the load determined by the load determining device (see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0027]-[0028] and [0032]-[0034]);
the maximum torque is continuously adjusted to an increase in the load determined by the load-determining device (see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0027]-[0028] and [0032]-[0034]);
the maximum torque is increased following an increase of the load determined by the load, determining device (see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0027]-[0028] and [0032]-[0034]);
the maximum torque is increased proportionally to the increase of the load determined by the load-determining device (see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0028]-[0029] and [0032]-[0034]); or
the maximum torque is continuously increased according to a predetermined rate of change of the torque until a desired drive speed of the lifting mechanism drive is reached (see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0022] and [0032]-[0034]).
For claim 5, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose the method according to claim 2, wherein a maximum value for a maximum torque increase is predetermined by the control device (see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0022] and [0032]-[0034]).
For claim 7, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein, in the further phase, when the higher tightening torque of the lifting mechanism drive reaches the initial value of maximum torque and/or a drive speed of the lifting mechanism drive falls below a predetermined value, the control device cancels the initial phase limitation of the reduced tightening torque to the maximum torque and/or increases the maximum torque (see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0022] and [0032]-[0034]; and see and see Felps, Figs. 1, 2A, and 4, paragraphs [0021], [0026], [0028] and [0040]); and
wherein substantially at the same time as the cancelation of the initial phase limitation of the reduced tightening torque to the maximum torque and/or the increasing of the maximum torque, a predetermined maximum rate of change of the lifting mechanism speed is predetermined as an acceleration limitation (see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0022]; [0032]-[0034] and [0063]-[0064]; and see and see Felps, Figs. 1, 2A, and 4, paragraphs [0021], [0026], [0028] and [0040]).
For claim 8, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose the method according to claim 7, wherein, when or after reaching a substantially constant load on the lifting mechanism, the acceleration limitation is canceled by the control device and/or successively increased to a nominal maximum acceleration (see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0022]; [0032]-[0034] and [0063]-[0064]; and see and see Felps, Figs. 1, 2A, and 4, paragraphs [0021], [0026], [0028] and [0040]).
For claim 9, Ogawa disclose a method for braking a lifting mechanism for setting down a load on the ground or a drop-off surface, in which a lifting mechanism drive is operated (Fig. 1 and 5C of Owaga discloses a method for braking a lifting mechanism 2,3,5 for setting down a load 4 on the ground or a drop-off surface, in which a lifting mechanism drive 8 is operated – see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0063]-[0064], It is noted that Fig. 1 and 5C of Owaga disclose a controller 12 which calculates, from the motor current from sensors 15-7, a torque applied by the electric motor 8 to the winch drum as a value corresponding to the tension of the wire rope as shown in Fig. 5C; and executes stop processing of the electric motor when the average tension becomes equal to or less than a predetermined reference value during lowering of the load 4 – see Figs. 1 and 5C, paragraph [0050]), the method comprising:
in a phase for initially contacting the drop-off surface and/or initially releasing the lifting means (Fig. 1 of Owaga discloses, in a phase for initially contacting the drop-off surface and/or initially releasing the lifting means 2, 3, 5 by detecting a decrease in the tension of the wire rope resulting from landing of the suspended load and controlling the electric motor in response thereto – see Owaga, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0010], lines 1-9, [0028] and [0032], lines 7-15), the braking torque of the lifting mechanism drive is automatically limited by a control device to an predetermined torque (Figs. 1 and 5C, 5F of Ogawa disclose the braking torque of the lifting mechanism drive is automatically limited by a control device 12 to an predetermined torque – see Ogawa, Figs. 1 and 5C, [0041] and [0048]-[0050]. It is noted that Ogawa discloses, following landing of the suspended load, the tension in the wire rope abruptly decreases and that the controller response to this reduction in tension by controlling the electric motor – see Ogawa, Figs. 1 and 5C, paragraphs [0048]-[0050]); and
in a further phase, a load acting on the lifting mechanism decreases as a result of releasing the lifting means and/or a drive speed of the lifting mechanism drive decreases (Owaga discloses operating a load 4 acting on the lifting mechanism 2, 3, 5 decreases as a result of releasing the lifting means 2,3,5 and/or a drive speed of the lifting mechanism 2,3,5 drive decreases – see Owaga, Figs. 1-2 and 5, paragraphs [0041]-[0049]).
Owaga does not disclose the operating the lifting mechanism drive with an initially higher braking torque for initially contacting the load with the drop-off surface and/or initially releasing a lifting means and for continuing the release with a lower braking torque, wherein, during the initial phase, the braking torque is automatically limited to an initial minimum torque that is smaller than a load-holding torque required to hold the load, but is greater than a load-free lowering resistance torque, and wherein, during a further phase, the minimum torque is reduced and/or the rate of change of the drive speed of the lifting mechanism drive is limited to a minimum deceleration acceleration.
Felps discloses the operating the lifting mechanism drive with an initially higher braking torque for initially contacting the load with the drop-off surface and/or initially releasing a lifting means and for continuing the release with a lower braking torque, wherein, during the initial phase, the braking torque is automatically limited to an initial minimum torque that is smaller than a load-holding torque required to hold the load, but is greater than a load-free lowering resistance torque, and wherein, during a further phase, the minimum torque is reduced and/or the rate of change of the drive speed of the lifting mechanism drive is limited to a minimum deceleration acceleration (Figs. 1, 4 and 5A-5B of Felps discloses the operating the lifting mechanism drive 22/426 with an initially higher braking torque for initially contacting the load with the drop-off surface and/or initially releasing a lifting means and for continuing the release with a lower braking torque, wherein, during the initial phase, the braking torque is automatically limited to an initial minimum torque that is smaller than a load-holding torque required to hold the load, but is greater than a load-free lowering resistance torque, and wherein, during a further phase, the minimum torque is reduced and/or the rate of change of the drive speed of the lifting mechanism drive is limited to a minimum deceleration acceleration – see Felps, Figs. 1, 2A, 4 and 5A-5B, paragraphs [0020]-[0021], [0026], [0029]-[0030] and [0051]-[0053]. It is noted that Felps discloses applying a low duty cycle PWM waveform to control the winch motor, thereby reducing the motor armature current and consequently reducing the winch torque. Further, Felps discloses changing the operating state of the winch based on whether a load is detected, including increasing winch speed when no load is detected and changing operating condition when a load is detected. Thus, Felps provides adjustable current/torque limiting and current regulation of the winch motor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Ogawa to incorporate teaching of Felps for purpose of obtaining the desired controlled lowering and release of the lifting means.
For claim 11, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose the method according to claim 9, wherein the lifting mechanism drive is operated by the control device in a speed-controlled manner (see Ogawa, Figs. 2 and 4, paragraphs [0043]-[0044] and [0063]).
For claim 12, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose the method according to claim 9, wherein the lifting mechanism drive is operated by the control device in a torque-controlled manner (see Ogawa, Figs. 2 and 4, paragraphs [0049]-[0050] and [0064]).
For claim 13, Ogawa in view of Felps, best understand, disclose the method according to claim 9, wherein the lifting mechanism drive is controlled by the control device via an inverter, by means of which the tightening and/or braking torque of the lifting mechanism drive is limited (Fig. 1 of Ogawa discloses the lifting mechanism drive 8 which is controlled by the control device 12 via an inverter 9, by means of which the tightening and/or braking torque of the lifting mechanism drive 8 is limited –see Ogawa, Figs. 1 and 5C, [0041] and [0048]-[0050]).
For claim 16, Ogawa disclose a lifting gear with a lifting mechanism comprising a lifting means for lifting a load, a lifting mechanism drive for actuating the lifting mechanism and a control device for controlling the lifting mechanism drive (Fig. 1 of Ogawa discloses with a lifting mechanism 1 comprising a lifting means 2 for lifting a load 4, a lifting mechanism drive 1 for actuating the lifting mechanism 1 and a control device 9, 12 for controlling the lifting mechanism drive 8 – see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0016]-[0019] and [0027]. Ogawa is silent for disclosing a lifting gear. However, Felps discloses a lifting gear (Fig. 4, 430). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Ogawa to incorporate teaching of Felps for purpose of providing critical connection, stabilization, and weight distribution), wherein the control device has a starting control stage for starting up the lifting mechanism drive with an initially reduced tightening torque for tensioning the lifting means and for continuing the tightening with a then higher tightening torque, wherein the starting control stage of the control device is configured to automatically limit the tightening torque of the lifting mechanism drive to an initial value of maximum torque in a phase for initial tensioning of the lifting means, which is greater than a load-free lifting resistance torque due to inherent resistances of the lifting mechanism, but less than a load lifting torque required for lifting the load, and in a further phase, when the load acting on the lifting mechanism increases due to the tensioning of the lifting means and/or a drive speed of the lifting mechanism drive decreases, to increase the maximum torque and/or to limit the rate of change of the drive speed of the lifting mechanism drive to a maximum tightening acceleration for further tightening (similarity as claim 1 above, explanation is omitted).
For claim 19, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose a lifting gear with a lifting mechanism comprising a lifting means for lifting a load, a lifting mechanism drive for actuating the lifting mechanism and a control device for controlling the lifting mechanism drive (Fig. 1 of Ogawa discloses with a lifting mechanism 1 comprising a lifting means 2 for lifting a load 4, a lifting mechanism drive 1 for actuating the lifting mechanism 1 and a control device 9, 12 for controlling the lifting mechanism drive 8 – see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0016]-[0019] and [0027]. Ogawa is silent for disclosing a lifting gear. However, Felps discloses a lifting gear (Fig. 4, 430). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Ogawa to incorporate teaching of Felps for purpose of providing critical connection, stabilization, and weight distribution), wherein the control device has a braking control stage for braking the lifting mechanism drive (Fig. 1 of Ogawa discloses the control device 12 has a braking control stage for braking the lifting mechanism drive 8 -- see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0018], [0020], [0026] and [0045]) with initially higher braking torque for initially contacting the load with the drop-off surface and/or initially releasing the lifting means and for continuing the braking with then lower braking torque, wherein the braking control stage of the control device is configured to automatically limit the braking torque of the lifting mechanism drive to an initial minimum torque which is smaller than a load lifting torque required for lifting the load, in a phase for initial contacting of the lowering surface and/or initial release of the lifting means, but is greater than a load-free lowering resistance torque due to inherent resistances of the lifting mechanism, and, in a further phase, when a load acting on the lifting mechanism decreases due to release of the lifting means and/or a drive speed of the lifting mechanism drive decreases, to reduce the minimum torque for further releasing and/or to limit the rate of change of the drive speed of the lifting mechanism drive to a minimum deceleration acceleration (similarity as claim 9 above, explanation is omitted).
For claim 21, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose the lifting gear according to claim 20, wherein the load determining device has a load sensor for detecting a tensile force in the lifting means and/or a tensile force on the load-bearing means; and wherein the braking control stage of the control device is configured to lower the minimum torque in accordance with a load signal from the load sensor.
For claim 23, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the lifting mechanism drive is operated by the control device in a speed-controlled manner (Fig. 1 of Ogawa discloses the lifting mechanism drive 8 is operated by the control device 12 in a speed-controlled manner – see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0027], [0039]-[0040] and [0043]-[0044]).
For claim 24, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the lifting mechanism drive is operated by the control device in a torque-controlled manner (Fig. 1 of Ogawa discloses the lifting mechanism drive 8 is operated by the control device 12 in a Torque-controlled manner – see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0022], [0041], and [0049]-[0050]).
For claim 25, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the lifting mechanism drive is controlled by the control device via an inverter, by means of which the tightening and/or braking torque of the lifting mechanism drive is limited (Fig. 1 of Ogawa discloses the lifting mechanism drive 8 which is controlled by the control device 12 via an inverter 9, by means of which the tightening and/or braking torque of the lifting mechanism drive 8 is limited –see Ogawa, Figs. 1 and 5C, [0041] and [0048]-[0050]).
Claims 10, 17-18 and 30-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (hereinafter Ogawa, US 2019/0256328 A1) in view of Felps et al. (hereinafter Felps, US 2019/0292026 A1), further in view of Kawai et al. (hereinafter Kawai, US 2019/0300339 A1).
For claim 10, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose the method according to claim 9, wherein the load acting on the lifting mechanism is determined by a load-determining device (Fig. 1 of Ogawa discloses the load 4 acting on the lifting mechanism 2,3,5 which is determined by a load-determining device 15 – see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraph [0032]).
Ogawa in view of Felps is silent for specifically disclosing the minimum torque which is reduced by the control device in the further phase for further releasing the lifting means in accordance with a drop in the load determined by the load-determining device.
However, Kawai discloses a lifting mechanism device which similar as Ogawa’s lifting mechanism device (Kawai discloses a crane winding apparatus 1 comprising a winch drum 11, a motor 13 for driving the winch drum 11 to lowering or hoisting, a wire rope 16 supporting a hanging cargo 17, and a load detector 15 configured to determine the load of the hanging cargo 17 -- see Kawai, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0031]-[0032]), wherein the minimum torque which is reduced by the control device in the further phase for further releasing the lifting means in accordance with a drop in the load determined by the load-determining device (see Kawaai, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0036]-[0039], [0041], [0053]-[0063] and [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Ogawa in view of Felps to incorporate teaching of Kawai for purpose of providing an actual or estimated load value on the lift mechanism, thereby permitting the lifting mechanism drive to be controlled in accordance with changes in the detected load.
For claim 17, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose a lifting gear according to claim 16, wherein a load determining device is provided for determining the load acting on the lifting mechanism (Fig. 1 of Ogawa discloses wherein a load determining device 15-17 is provided for determining the load 4 acting on the lifting mechanism 2,3, 5 – see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraph [0032]).
Ogawa in view of Felps is silent for specifically disclosing the starting control stage being configured to increase the maximum torque in the further phase for further tightening in accordance with an increase in the load determined by the load-determining device.
However, Kawai discloses a lifting mechanism device which similar as Ogawa’s lifting mechanism device (Kawai discloses a crane winding apparatus 1 comprising a winch drum 11, a motor 13 for driving the winch drum 11 to lowering or hoisting, a wire rope 16 supporting a hanging cargo 17, and a load detector 15 configured to determine the load of the hanging cargo 17 -- see Kawai, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0031]-[0032]), wherein the starting control stage being configured to increase the maximum torque in the further phase for further tightening in accordance with an increase in the load determined by the load-determining device (see Kawaai, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0036]-[0039], [0041], [0053]-[0063] and [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Ogawa in view of Felps to incorporate teaching of Kawai for purpose of providing an actual or estimated load value on the lift mechanism, thereby permitting the lifting mechanism drive to be controlled in accordance with changes in the detected load.
For claims 18 and 21, Ogawa in view of Felps, further in view of Kuwai disclose the lifting gear according to claim 17 or claim 20, wherein the load determining device has a load sensor for detecting a tensile force in the lifting means and/or a tensile force on the load-bearing means (Fig. 1 of Ogawa discloses the load determining device 15-17 has a load sensor for detecting a tensile force in the lifting means and/or a tensile force on the load-bearing means – see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraph [0032]); and
wherein the starting control stage of the control device is configured to increase the maximum torque in accordance with a load signal from the load sensor (see Kawaai, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0036]-[0039], [0041], [0053]-[0063] and [0069]).
For claim 20, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose the lifting gear according to claim 19, wherein a load determining device is provided for determining the load acting on the lifting mechanism (Fig. 1 of Ogawa discloses wherein a load determining device 15-17 is provided for determining the load 4 acting on the lifting mechanism 2,3, 5 – see Ogawa, Fig. 1, paragraph [0032]); and
wherein the deceleration control stage is configured to decrease the minimum torque in the further phase for further tightening in accordance with a decrease in the load determined by the load-determining device (similar as claim 10 above. The explanation is omitted.).
Claims 14-15, 26-32 and 34-37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (hereinafter Ogawa, US 2019/0256328 A1) in view of Felps et al. (hereinafter Felps, US 2019/0292026 A1), further in view of Ruddy (US 2002/0144968 A1).
For claim 14, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose all limitations as applied in claim 9 above. Ogawa and Felps do not disclose the initial value of maximum torque is selected by the control device in the range of 105% to 150% of the load-free lifting resistance torque and/or in the range of less than 50% of the load lifting torque required to lift the load. However, Ruddy discloses a lifting mechanism device which similar as Ogawa’s lifting mechanism device (Fig. 1 of Ruddy discloses a crane hoist apparatus 100 comprising a controller 200, an adjustable speed drive 120, and a hoist mechanical system 130 for raising and lowing a load 150 – see Ruddy, Fig. 1, paragraph [0018]),Ruddy discloses the initial value of maximum torque is selected by the control device in the range of 105% to 150% of the load-free lifting resistance torque and/or in the range of less than 50% of the load lifting torque required to lift the load (Ruddy does not specifically disclose the initial value of maximum torque is selected by the control device in the range of 105% to 150% of the load-free lifting resistance torque and/or in the range of less than 50% of the load lifting torque required to lift the load. However, Ruddy discloses determining and controlling the torque associated with operation of the hoist and recognizes that the torque required during operation is dependent on the lift load. Further, Ruddy discloses a portion of torque applied when lifting the load is required to overcome friction in the hoist mechanical system – see Ruddy, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0053]-[0070]. Although Ruddy does not specifically disclose the claimed numerical ranges of 105% to 150% and less than 50%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to obtain the initial value of maximum torque is selected by the control device in the range of 105% to 150% and less than 50%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, of which the Examiner take Office Notice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Ruddy to obtain specific range to optimize the initial maximum torque relative to the torque necessary to overcome the resistance of the lifting mechanism and the torque necessary to lift the load).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Ogawa in view of Felps to incorporate teaching of Ruddy for purpose of providing sufficient torque to overcome the inherent resistance of the lifting mechanism while maintaining the initial torque below that required to lift the load, thereby providing controlled operation of the lift mechanism efficiently.
Claims 15, 26-32 and 34-37 are "method" claims which are either same or similar to that of the "method" claim 14. Explanation is omitted.
Claims 22 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (hereinafter Ogawa, US 2019/0256328 A1) in view of Felps et al. (hereinafter Felps, US 2019/0292026 A1), further in view of Stroedter (EP 0591304 B1).
For claim 22, Ogawa in view of Felps disclose all limitation as applied in claim 1 above. Ogawa and Felps do not disclose an inherent resistance of the inherent resistances is selected from a group consisting of dead weight, friction of the lifting mechanism, and inertia of the lifting mechanism. However, Stroedter discloses an inherent resistance of the inherent resistances is selected from a group consisting of dead weight, friction of the lifting mechanism, and inertia of the lifting mechanism (Stroedter disclose friction, inertia, and dead weight as forces or resistances inherent in the operation of a lifting mechanism – see Stroedter, page 2, lines 23-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Ogawa in view of Felps to incorporate teaching of Stroedter for purpose of obtaining the predictable result of controlling the drive in accordance with the mechanical resistance encountered by the lifting mechanism.
Claim 33 is a method claim which is either same or similar to that of “an apparatus” claim 22. The explanation is omitted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-3852. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-3852.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at (571)272-2060. 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.
/THAI T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Sep 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights