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.
Claim(s) 15-17, 19, 20, & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauronen et al. (US 4842302 A, herein after referred to as Lauronen) in view of Deuringer (DE 3934499 C2).
Regarding claim 15 Lauronen teaches a chassis; a first axle connected to the chassis (FIG. 1: 1 or 6); and a first lifter for raising or lowering the first axle (FIG. 1: 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, & 8), the first lifter comprising a first flexible connector for connecting with the first axle (FIG. 1: 2) and a first cylinder including a first rod adapted for substantially horizontal movement for raising or lowering the first axle (FIG. 1: 8), but not that the assembly is part of a crane or a first bearing for supporting the flexible connector during the lifting and lowering of the axle nor a boom supported by the chassis for raising and lowering loads.
However, official notice is taken the cranes are commonly known in the art and it would have
been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively mounted a crane on the vehicle taught by Lauronen to produce a mobile crane with a versatile lifting bogie.
Furthermore, Deuringer does teach a crane with a boom arm supported by the chassis for raising and lowering loads (FIG. 1: 30). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively used the axle lifting system taught by Lauronen with the boom arm of Deuringer to produce a mobile crane with a versatile lifting bogie.
Additionally, official notice is taken that bearings are commonly known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included a roller bearing in the conventional fastening means (FIG. 1: 11) to ensure smooth and long-lasting rotational support of the spring.
As a result of this combination this would produce a lifting machine for raising and lowering loads (allowed for by the boom arm) comprising a crane (the specific type of lifting machine featuring the boom arm, as opposed to for example a fork lift) which comprises the other limitations of the claim (as they are all mounted on the crane vehicle and not located elsewhere).
Regarding claim 16 Lauronen as modified above does not explicitly teach a second axle connected to the chassis; and a second lifter for raising or lowering the second axle. However, official notice is taken that vehicles comprising multiple bogies are commonly known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included a second identical bogie in the vehicle with a second axle and lifter in order to better spread the weight of a large vehicle.
Regarding claim 17 Lauronen as modified above teaches that the second lifter comprises a second flexible strap for connecting with the second axle and a second cylinder including a second rod adapted for substantially horizontal movement for raising or lowering the second axle, and a second bearing for supporting the second flexible strap during the lifting and lowering of the axle (result of the above combination).
Regarding claim 19 Luaronen as modified above teaches a drive shaft connecting the first and second axles (Lauronen, FIG. 1: 9 & duplicate thereof added in claim 16).
Regarding claim 20 Lauronen teaches a suspension system connecting the first axle to the chassis (Lauronen, FIG. 1: axle suspended by 2).
Regarding claim 22 Lauronen as modified above teaches outriggers for raising and lowering the chassis (Deuringer, (FIG. 1: 24).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauronen et al. (US 4842302 A, herein after referred to as Lauronen) in view of Deuringer (DE 3934499 C2) and further in view of Fageol (US 1981449 A).
Regarding claim 21 Lauronen as modified above does not teach a flexible drive shaft connecting the first and second axles. However, Fageol does teach connecting flexible drive shafts to axles (claim 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively driven the axles of Lauronen as modified above with flexible drive shafts as taught by Fageol in order to provide consistent power to all the wheels even when raised or lowered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are allowed.
Claim(s) 18 is/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:
Regarding claim 1 no prior art made of record teaches a strap being pulled by the lifted between an extended position and a retracted position in combination with the other recited limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 18 no prior art made of record teaches a crane wherein the first rod and second rod are arranged to move in opposite directions upon actuation of the first cylinder and second cylinder, respectively.
A combination of these limitations and the other recited features was not reasonably found in the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not all persuasive.
The argument that claim 1 has been amended to overcome the prior art is persuasive. The argument is made that the strap of Luaronen is not pulled between an extended and a retracted position and this is the case.
The arguments regarding claims 2 & 8 are moot because the claims are allowable as dependent upon claim 1.
Regarding the argument that claim 15 is not obvious because Lauronen is not the same type of lifting machine with crane as the instant invention is not persuasive because the rejection was made with Lauronen in view of Deuringer and no argument was put forth or limitation added with would challenge that the combination teaches a lifting machine with crane as claimed.
Additionally, regarding claim 15 it is argued that the lifter lifts the axles on a lifting machine and the crane itself comprising the first lifter. This is not persuasive because the chassis and axle are claimed to be mounted on the crane as well and the lifter of Lauronen in view of Deuringer is seemingly no less mounted on the crane than these other components both in Lauronen and in the instant invention as well. FIG. 4 of the instant invention shows the lifters mounted to the chassis but the claim does not recite how the lifter must be attached.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not replied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO 892 teach axle systems of interest.
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 extension fee 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 MAXWELL L MESHAKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5693. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00.
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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on (571) 272-7742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAXWELL L MESHAKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/PAUL N DICKSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614