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 .
The following final office action is in response to the reply filed December 31, 2025.
Drawings
The drawing correction filed December 31, 2025 have been approved.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because “at least one intermediate position” on lines 14-15 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the at least one intermediate position set forth above or is attempting to set forth another intermediate position in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 13 is objected to because “secures the door in the at least one intermediate position” on lines 2-3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how “secures” the door further limits the recitation of “fix the door in at least one intermediate position” set forth on lines 12-13 of claim 1.
Claim 14 is objected to because “at least one predefined intermediate position” on lines 2-3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the at least one intermediate position set forth above or is attempting to set forth another intermediate position in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 17 is objected to because “at least one control element” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the at least one control element set forth above or is attempting to set forth another control element in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 25 is objected to because “a mobile crane” on line 1 of claim 11 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the mobile crane set forth on line 1 of claim 25 is or attempting to set forth another mobile crane in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 28 is objected to because “a crane cabin” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the crane cabin set fort above or is attempting to set forth another crane cabin in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 29 is objected to because “a control element” on line 1 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the at least one control element set forth above or is attempting to set forth another control element in addition to the one set forth above.
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.
Claim 28 is 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.
Recitations such as “a superstructure of the mobile crane, in particular in the region for ascending to the crane cabin” on line 5 of claim 28 render the claims indefinite because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 28 recites the broad recitation of superstructure of the mobile crane and also recites the region for ascending to the crane cabin which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 11, 13, 14 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidhuber et al. (US 6030024) in view of Elie et al. (US 9834974). Schmidhuber et al. discloses a crane cabin door system for a mobile crane, comprising:
a door 3 (fig. 1) which closes an access opening 2 (fig. 2) of a crane cabin 1, wherein the door 3 is guided between an open position, as shown in figure 2, and a closed position, as shown in figure 1, by a guide mechanism 5, 7, 8, 9 (fig. 1), wherein the guide mechanism 5, 7, 8, 9 includes an outward pivoting door mechanism 5, 7, 8, 9 which guides the door 3 to move predominantly perpendicular to the access opening 2 near the closed position;
a door drive 6 (see lines 65-66 of column 2 which sets forth that the shaft 6 is rotated by an electric drive) which moves the door between the open position and the closed position.
Schmidhuber et al. is silent concerning a control unit.
However, Elie et al. discloses a control unit 11 (fig. 1) which is connected to a door drive 10 (fig. 4A) and to at least one control element (not numbered, but set forth on lines 49-59 of column 12) and which actuates the door drive 10 in accordance with a user input made via the at least one control element; and a guide mechanism and/or the door drive 10 being configured to fix a door 16 in at least one intermediate position, i.e., the door check position as set forth on lines 11-16 of column 9, between an open position and a closed position and wherein the control unit 11 is configured to allow the door to be arbitrarily stopped in at least one intermediate position, i.e., the door check position as set forth on lines 11-16 of column 9, as the door moves between the open and closed positions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Schmidhuber et al. with a control unit, as taught by Elie et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a user to operate the door with from within the cabin, to operate the door remote from the cabin, and to enable the user to open the door to preselected open positions.
With respect to claim 13, Schmidhuber et al., as modified above, discloses that the guide mechanism and/or the door drive 10 secures the door 3 in the at least one intermediate position as set forth on lines 11-16 of column 9.
With respect to claim 14, Schmidhuber et al., as modified above, discloses that the control unit 11 is also configured to stop the door 3 in at least one predefined intermediate position as set forth on lines 36-41 of column 9.
With respect to claim 20, Schmidhuber et al., as modified above, discloses that the control unit 11 actuates the door drive 10 in accordance with at least one crane status variable and/or at least one environmental parameter set forth as the slope of the vehicle on lines 36-41 of column 9.
With respect to claim 21, Schmidhuber et al., as modified above, discloses that the control unit 11 actuates the door drive 10 in accordance with at least one sensor value generated by the sensor 25 as set forth on lines 47-67 of column 11.
With respect to claim 22, Schmidhuber et al., as modified above, discloses that the control unit 11 causes an acoustic and/or optical warning signal, as set forth on lines 25-38 of column 12, to be emitted in accordance with at least one crane status variable and/or at least one environmental parameter, i.e., the door being ajar, before and/or as the door drive is moving.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidhuber et al. in view of Elie et al. as applied to claims 11, 13, 14 and 20-22 above, and further in view of Schuetz et al. (US 2015/0128497). Schuetz et al. discloses the use of a CAN bus which is used by components of the vehicle to communicate with a controller 4 as set forth on lines 1-4 of paragraph 45.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Schmidhuber et al., as modified above, with a CAN bus communication system, as taught by Schuetz et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to more easily connect the components of the vehicle, such as the door drive and the control element, to the controller.
Claims 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1 550 773 in view of Elie et al. (US 9834974). EP 1 550 773 discloses a crane cabin door system for a mobile crane, comprising:
a door 2 (fig. 1) which closes an access opening 5 (fig. 1) of a crane cabin 1, wherein the door 2 is guided between an open position and a closed position by a guide mechanism 3, 6, 8, wherein the guide mechanism 3, 6, 8 includes an outward pivoting door mechanism 3, 6, 8 which guides the door 2 to move predominantly perpendicular to the access opening 5 near the closed position;
a door drive 18 (fig. 1) which moves the door 2 between the open position and the closed position.
EP 1 550 773 is silent concerning a control unit.
However, Elie et al. discloses a crane cabin door system for a mobile crane, comprising: a door 16 (fig. 1) which closes an access opening of a crane cabin, wherein the door 16 is guided between an open position and a closed position by a guide mechanism 32 (fig. 4A); a door drive 10 (fig. 4A) which moves the door 16 between the open position and the closed position; and a control unit 11 (fig. 2) which is connected to the door drive 10 and to at least one control element (not numbered, but set forth on lines 49-59 of column 12) and which actuates the door drive 10 in accordance with a user input made via the at least one control element; and a guide mechanism and/or the door drive 10 being configured to fix the door 16 in at least one intermediate position, i.e., the door check position as set forth on lines 11-16 of column 9, between the open position and the closed position and wherein the control unit 11 is configured to allow the door 16 to be arbitrarily stopped in at least one intermediate position, i.e., the door check position as set forth on lines 11-16 of column 9, as the door moves between the open and closed positions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the crane door system of EP 1 550 773 with the control unit, as taught by Elie et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a user to operate the door with from within the cabin, to operate the door remote from the cabin, and to enable the user to open the door to preselected open positions.
With respect to claim 26, the control unit 11 of Elie et al. is integrated into the vehicle controller of the vehicle 14. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to integrate the control unit of Elie et al. into the crane controller of the mobile crane of EP 1 550 773 with a reasonable expectation of success to simplify the assembly the crane and the control system thereof.
With respect to claim 27, EP 1 550 773, as modified above, discloses that the functions of the control unit 11 are functions of the crane controller since the control unit 11 is integrated into the crane controller of the mobile crane as set forth in the rejection of claim 26.
With respect to claim 28, Elie et al. discloses that the control element is arranged in the driver’s cab (see lines 55-56 of column 12) of the vehicle 12. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to position the control unit, as taught by Elie et al., into the driver’s cab of the mobile crane of EP 1 550 773, as modified above, with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a user of the crane to easily access the control element to control the movement of the door from within the driver’s cab of the mobile crane.
With respect to claim 29, Elie et al. discloses a control element (see lines 49-59, more specifically lines 56-57, of column 12) which is integrated in a remote control, i.e, the key fob set forth on line 57 of column 12, for the vehicle 12, the remote control being a hand held remote control and/or a wireless remote control since key fobs are a hand held wireless remote control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide EP 1 550 773, as modified above, with a control element being integrated in a hand held remote control, as taught by Elie et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a user to remotely control the operation of the crane cabin door.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s comments with respect to Elie et al. as applied in the 35 USC 102 rejection in the October 1, 2025 office action are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
The applicant’s comment concerning Elie et al. failing to disclose a control unit that is configured to allow the door to be arbitrarily stopped in at least one intermediate position as the door moves between the open or closed positions is not persuasive. Elie et al. discloses that the door 16 can be stopped in at least one intermediate position since the controller 11 can be programmed to stop the door at a desired door check position as set forth on lines 1-22 of column 9. This position is considered to be arbitrary since the user can arbitrarily select a desired door check position. The applicant’s comments concerning the door checks of Elie et al. being predefined and not varying during the operation of the power assist device are not persuasive because they are not supported by the claim language. Note that the claims do not recite anything about the intermediate position of the door varying during the operation of the power assist device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights