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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
In claim 3, “wherein the fixing frame is formed as a tripod”, since the Figures are not clearly showing three legs.
In claim 4, line 5, “a first stepper motor, wherein the first stepper motor is arranged on the fixing frame”.
In claim 7, line 2, “a controller, wherein the controller is electrically connected to the first stepper motor and the second stepper motor”. Figure may be shown, for example, as a block diagram.
In claim 9, “wherein the connecting frame is formed as a tripod”, since the Figures are not clearly showing three legs.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, “rotating single-arm” should read ---rotating single-arm mechanism---.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Waisanen (US20050173192A1).
Regarding claim 1, Waisanen discloses a bridge crane construction platform, comprising: a platform framework (10; Figures 1-3), wherein the platform framework (10) is configured to be connected to a translation trolley (210; Figure 14) of a girder (22) of a bridge crane (14); a fixing frame (58), wherein a first end of the fixing frame (58) is fixedly connected to the platform framework (10); a rotating single-arm mechanism (66; Figure 8), wherein the rotating single-arm (66) is arranged at a second end of the fixing frame (58) and is rotatably connected to the fixing frame (58), and the second end faces away from the first end; and a lifting hook mechanism (66b; 66d), wherein the lifting hook mechanism (66b; 66d) is arranged on the rotating single-arm mechanism (66) and is used for lifting materials.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waisanen in view of Lee (KR102013575B1).
Regarding claim 3, Waisanen discloses the above bridge crane construction platform, but fails to teach wherein the fixing frame is formed as a tripod.
Lee teaches a similar single arm crane and further teaches wherein the fixing frame (20, 21, 30; Figure 1) is formed as a tripod. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bridge crane construction platform of Waisanen to include the fixing frame as taught by Lee in order to provide reinforcement of the fixing frame to accommodate the bending and moment stress of the single arm mechanism.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waisanen in view of Liang (CN112794217A).
Regarding claims 4-7, Waisanen discloses the above bridge crane construction platform and further teaches wherein the rotating single-arm mechanism (66; Figure 8) comprises: a single arm (66a), wherein the single arm (66a) is rotatably connected to the second end of the fixing frame (58);
wherein a pulley track (track of single arm beam 66a) is formed on the single arm (66a), and the lifting hook mechanism (66b) is slidably connected to the single arm (66a) through the pulley track (¶0040; hook 66b mounted on rollers to slide along pulley track);
wherein the lifting hook mechanism (66b) comprises: a lifting hook body (hook of 66b), wherein the lifting hook body is slidably connected to the single arm (66a) through the pulley track, but fails to teach a first stepper motor, wherein the first stepper motor is arranged on the fixing frame and is electrically connected to the single arm, and is configured to drive the single arm to rotate;
a second stepper motor, wherein the second stepper motor is arranged on the single arm and is electrically connected to the lifting hook body, and is configured to drive the lifting hook body to move along a length direction of the single arm through the pulley track;
and a controller, wherein the controller is electrically connected to the first stepper motor and the second stepper motor, respectively, and is configured to control the first stepper motor and the second stepper motor.
Liang teaches a similar single arm crane and further teaches a first motor (32; Figure 1), wherein the first motor (32) is arranged on the fixing frame (12) and is electrically connected to the single arm (11), and is configured to drive the single arm (11) to rotate;
a second motor (52), wherein the second motor (52) is arranged on the single arm (11) and is electrically connected to the lifting hook body (7), and is configured to drive the lifting hook body (7) to move along a length direction of the single arm (11) through the pulley track (51; of Waisanen);
and a controller (1), wherein the controller (1) is electrically connected to the first motor (32) and the second motor (52), respectively, and is configured to control the first motor (32) and the second motor (52; page 8, ¶4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bridge crane construction platform of Waisanen to include the first and second motor and controller as taught by Liang in order to avoid safety risk and injury to the operator and allow for ease of operation; and to include first and second stepper motors since it is known in the art to provide a simpler and cost effective design for providing sufficient torque and movement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 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 a plurality of diagonal bracing tubes, wherein one end of the plurality of diagonal bracing tubes is connected to the platform body, and the other end is connected to the translation trolley through an ear plate.
Liang is the closest prior art and further teaches wherein the platform framework (10) comprises: a platform body (54, 110; Figure 4), wherein the platform body (54, 110) is fixedly connected to the translation trolley (210); and plurality of bracing tubes (118; Figure 1) connected to the platform body and the other end is connected to the translation trolley, but fails to teach a plurality of diagonal bracing tubes, wherein one end of the plurality of diagonal bracing tubes is connected to the platform body, and the other end is connected to the translation trolley through an ear plate.
Claim 8 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 connecting frame is arranged on the platform framework and is parallel to the fixing frame and a fixing plate is formed on the side of the connecting frame away from the platform framework.
Gok (US11053102B2) teaches a similar single arm crane, is the closest prior art, and further teaches a connecting frame (24; Figures 52-58), wherein the connecting frame is parallel to the fixing frame, a fixing plate (plate at top of connecting frame 24) is formed on the end side of the connecting frame, and the fixing plate is used to be detachably connected to the end of the single arm (16) away from the fixing frame, but fails to teach wherein the connecting frame is arranged on the platform framework and is parallel to the fixing frame and a fixing plate is formed on the side of the connecting frame away from the platform framework.
Claims 9-10 would be allowable because they are dependents of claim 8
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