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
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, “flat plate parts and curved plate parts” should read ---the flat plate parts and the curved plate parts---.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-10, 15, 18-19, and 22-23 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 2 recites the limitation "the support frame connections" in line 2. The “support frame connections” in line 2 of claim 2 is lacking antecedent basis to set forth a plurality of the “support frame connection” in line 8 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3, line 2 recites “a pair of boom hinge connections” – however claim 1, line 7 already set forth “a pair of boom hinge connections” – therefore it is unclear if the second recitation is meant to refer to the first recitation or introduce an additional pair of boom hinge connections. For purposes of examination, the second recitation is being interpreted as “the pair of boom hinge connections”.
Claims 4 and 9, line 2 of claims 4 and 9 recites “a boom hinge connection” – however claim 1, line 7 already set forth “boom hinge connections” – therefore it is unclear if the second recitation is meant to refer to the first recitation or introduce an additional boom hinge connection. For purposes of examination, the second recitation is being interpreted as “the boom hinge connection”.
Claims 4 and 9, line 2 of claim 4 and line 3 of claim 9 recites “a support frame connection” – however claim 1, line 8 already set forth “support frame connection” – therefore it is unclear if the second recitation is meant to refer to the first recitation or introduce an additional boom hinge connection. For purposes of examination, the second recitation is being interpreted as “the support frame connection”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the ring structure" in line 2. How does the “ring structure” in line 2 of claim 15 relate to the “at least one circumferential ring structure” in line 2 of claim 13? Is there another ring structure being claimed that differs from the “at least one circumferential ring structure”? Suggestion to change “the ring structure” to read ---the at least one circumferential ring structure---. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the at least one pair of support frame hinge connections" in lines 2-3. How does the “at least one pair of support frame hinge connections” in lines 2-3 of claim 18 relate to the “support frame connection” in line 8 of claim 1? Are there two different support frame connections being claimed? There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 19, “its” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because the claim is unclear as what claimed structure “its” refers to in the claim. Applicant may want to change “it” to ---polygonal shape’s---.
Claim 22, line 1 recites “A crane” – however claim 1, line 1 already set forth “a crane” – therefore it is unclear if the second recitation is meant to refer to the first recitation or introduce an additional crane. For purposes of examination, the second recitation is being interpreted as “the crane”.
Claim 22, lines 2-3 recites “a slewing bearing” – however claim 1, line 2 already set forth “a slewing bearing” – therefore it is unclear if the second recitation is meant to refer to the first recitation or introduce an additional slewing bearing. For purposes of examination, the second recitation is being interpreted as “the slewing bearing”.
Claim 23, line 1 recites “A vessel or barge or jack-up” – however claim 22, lines 1-2 already set forth “a vessel or a barge or a jack-up” – therefore it is unclear if the second recitation is meant to refer to the first recitation or introduce an additional vessel or a barge or a jack-up. For purposes of examination, the second recitation is being interpreted as “The vessel or a barge or a jack-up”.
Claims 3-10 are rejected because they are dependents of claim 2.
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) 1-15 and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sietse (NL2023564B1) in view of Roodenburg (US10974937B2).
Regarding claim 1, Sietse discloses a support structure (21) for a crane (20), the support structure (21) comprising: a lower end (LE; see Sietse annotated Figure 2 below) having a circular shape for connection with a slewing bearing (22); an upper end (UE) having a polygonal shape for supporting a boom (30) of the crane (20); an outer side (OS) connecting an outer edge of the upper end (UE) with an outer edge of the lower end (LE); wherein the upper end (UE) is provided with a pair of boom hinge connections (27, 35) for hingedly connecting the boom (30) of the crane (20); wherein the outer side (OS) at least partly comprises plate parts (PP) forming a wall section for transition from the polygonal shape of the upper end (UE) to the circular shape of the lower end (LE),wherein the plate parts (PP) comprise flat plate parts (FP) and curved plate parts (CP), but fails to teach the upper end comprises at least with a support frame connection for supporting the support frame of the crane.
PNG
media_image1.png
332
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sietse, Annotated Figure 2
Roodenburg teaches a similar support structure and further teaches the upper end (upper portion of CH; Figures 1-2) comprises at least with a support frame connection (PA2, PA3) for supporting the support frame (B) of the crane (CR). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support structure of Sietse to include the support frame connection as taught by Roodenburg in order to provide a detachable support frame for ease of transport and reduced disassembly space.
Regarding claims 2-10, Sietse discloses the above support structure, but fails to teach
(claim 2) wherein below each one of the boom hinge connections and/or the support frame connections a box structure is provided to enable load transmission from the associated connection to the outer side and/or the lower end;
(claim 3) wherein at least the box structures of a pair of boom hinge connections are joined to each other forming a joined box structure and/or of a pair of support frame connections are joined to each other forming a joined box structure;
(claim 4) wherein the box structures of a boom hinge connection and a support frame connection are joined to each other forming a joined box structure;
(claim 5) wherein the joined box structure defines at least a part of the polygonal shape of the upper end of the support structure;
(claim 6) wherein, when the box structures of the boom hinge connections and of the support frame connections are joined to each other, the said joined box structure provides for a polygonal box structure defining the polygonal shape of the upper end of the support structure;
(claim 7) wherein the joined box structure forms an outer edge structure of the upper end;
(claim 8) wherein the joined box structure forming the outer edge structure of the upper end is a circumferential outer edge structure having a central opening;
(claim 9) wherein an upper side of the box structure provides a deck surface for mounting a boom hinge connection and/or a support frame connection thereto.
(claim 10) wherein a box structure height of the box structure is larger at the boom hinge connections compared to at support frame connections spaced apart from the boom hinge connections.
Roodenburg teaches a similar support structure and further teaches
(claim 2) wherein below each one of the boom hinge connections (PA1; Figures 1-3) and/or the support frame connections (PA2, PA3) a box structure (SS1, BE1-BE4, UF; BE5-BE6, UF) is provided to enable load transmission from the associated connection to the outer side and/or the lower end;
(claim 3) wherein at least the box structures (SS1, BE1-BE4, UF) of a pair of boom hinge connections (PA1; both sides) are joined to each other forming a joined box structure (PA1 joined by box structure SS1 and top surface UF of support structure CH) and/or of a pair of support frame connections (PA2; PA3; both sides) are joined to each other forming a joined box structure (PA2 joined by box structure SS1 and top surface UF of support structure CH; PA3 joined by top surface UF of support structure CH);
(claim 4) wherein the box structures (SS1, BE1-BE4) of a boom hinge connection (PA1) and a support frame connection (PA2) are joined to each other forming a joined box structure (PA1 and PA2 are joined by box structure SS1 and top surface UF of support structure CH);
(claim 5) wherein the joined box structure defines at least a part of the polygonal shape (SS1 and rear side RS structure is rectangular formed and forms flat sides that can be utilized in the flat surfaces of the UE polygonal shape of Sietse) of the upper end of the support structure (CH);
(claim 6) wherein, when the box structures (SS1, BE1-BE4) of the boom hinge connections (PA1; both sides) and of the support frame connections (PA2; both sides) are joined to each other, the said joined box structure provides for a polygonal box structure (rectangular formed) defining the polygonal shape (SS1 and rear side RS structure is rectangular formed and forms flat sides that can be utilized in the flat surfaces of the UE polygonal shape of Sietse) of the upper end of the support structure (CH);
(claim 7) wherein the joined box structure forms an outer edge structure of the upper end (structure SS1 and flat rear side RS surface of UF joining PA1/PA2/PA3 connections form a flat edge);
(claim 8) wherein the joined box structure forming the outer edge structure of the upper end is a circumferential outer edge structure (W; Figure 2) having a central opening (inner opening of wall W; Figure 3);
(claim 9) wherein an upper side of the box structure (SS1, BE1-BE4, UF; BE5-BE6, UF) provides a deck surface (UF) for mounting a boom hinge connection (PA1) and/or a support frame connection (PA2; PA3) thereto
(claim 10) wherein a box structure height of the box structure (SS1, BE1-BE4) is larger at the boom hinge connections (PA1; both sides) compared to at support frame connections (PA3) spaced apart from the boom hinge connections (PA1; Figures 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support structure of Sietse to include the box structures as taught by Roodenburg in order to provide a rigid and stable structure and help uniformly distribute the forces acting on the connections to prevent failure of the support structure.
Regarding claim 11, Sietse discloses wherein the entire outer side (OS) is closed with plate parts (PP) forming a wall connecting the circular shaped lower end (LE) and the polygonal shaped upper end (UE).
PNG
media_image1.png
332
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sietse, Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 12, Sietse discloses wherein at least one boom hinge connection (35) is provided on a corner of the polygonal shape (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Sietse discloses the above support structure, but fails to teach wherein an inside of the outer side is provided with at least one circumferential ring structure.
Roodenburg teaches a similar support structure and further teaches wherein an inside of the outer side (wall W) is provided with at least one circumferential ring structure (F1; F2; Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support structure of Sietse to include the ring structure as taught by Roodenburg in order to increase the strength of the side plate walls for rigid support to prevent warping.
Regarding claim 14, Sietse discloses the above support structure, but fails to teach wherein an inside of the outer side is provided with a plurality of stiffeners extending in an upward direction.
Roodenburg teaches a similar support structure and further teaches wherein an inside of the outer side (wall W) is provided with a plurality of stiffeners (ST; see Roodenburg annotated Figure 3 below) extending in an upward direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support structure of Sietse to include the stiffeners as taught by Roodenburg in order to increase the strength of the side plate walls for rigid support to prevent warping.
PNG
media_image2.png
291
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Roodenburg, Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 15, Sietse discloses the above support structure, but fails to teach wherein the ring structure is provided with openings to allow a stiffener to pass through.
Roodenburg teaches a similar support structure and further teaches wherein the ring structure (F1; F2) is provided with openings (RO; see Roodenburg annotated Figure 3 above) to allow a stiffener (ST) to pass through. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support structure of Sietse to include the ring structure as taught by Roodenburg in order to increase the strength of the side plate walls for rigid support in the horizontal and vertical direction to support tilting loads and prevent warping.
Regarding claim 17, Sietse discloses the above support structure, but fails to teach wherein the upper end has a central opening for receiving further objects.
Roodenburg teaches a similar support structure and further teaches wherein the upper end has a central opening (central holes on top surface UF; Figure 2) for receiving further objects (column 3, lines 11-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support structure of Sietse to include the upper end central opening as taught by Roodenburg in order to allow for easy access and maintenance of crane equipment.
Regarding claim 18, Sietse discloses the above support structure, but fails to teach wherein the pair of boom hinge connections and the at least one pair of support frame hinge connections are directly mounted to a deck surface of the upper end.
Roodenburg teaches a similar support structure and further teaches wherein the pair of boom hinge connections (PA1; both sides) and the at least one pair of support frame hinge connections (PA2; PA3) are directly mounted to a deck surface (UF) of the upper end. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support structure of Sietse to include the deck surface as taught by Roodenburg in order to adjoin and rigidly support the wall structure at the top end to prevent warping of the top edge of the walls and further provide an area for receiving other crane equipment.
Regarding claim 19, Sietse discloses the above support structure, but fails to teach wherein the polygonal shape has rounded-off corners at at least some of its vertices where boom hinge connections and/or support frame connections are arranged.
Roodenburg teaches a similar support structure and further teaches wherein the polygonal shape (polygonal shape UE of Sietse) has rounded-off corners at at least some of its vertices (upper section US shows cylindrical/rounded form made by the joined side plate parts of the wall W; Figure 2) where boom hinge connections (PA1) and/or support frame connections (PA2; PA3) are arranged. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support structure of Sietse to include the rounded-off corners as taught by Roodenburg in order to reduce stress at the vertices to prevent separation of the plate parts.
Regarding claim 20, Sietse discloses wherein flat plate parts (FP) and curved plate parts (CP) are arranged adjacent to each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
332
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sietse, Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 21, Sietse discloses wherein a flat plate part (FP) and an adjacent curved plate part (CP) alternate with each other when seen in a circumferential direction.
Regarding claims 22-23, Sietse discloses a crane (20) comprising a base structure (7) for mounting to a vessel or a barge (1; Figure 1) and the support structure (21) with a slewing bearing (22) between the base structure (7) and the support structure (21).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sietse, in view of Roodenburg, and in further view of Wang (CN109205487A).
Regarding claim 16, modified Sietse discloses the above support structure, but fails to teach wherein the polygonal shape of the upper end is hexagonal, septagonal or octagonal.
Wang teaches a similar support structure and further teaches wherein the polygonal shape of the upper end (6; Figure 1) is “irregular” hexagonal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support structure of Sietse to include the hexagonal upper end as taught by Wang in order to help balance tilting movements and reduce material cost and weight.
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