DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 12/13/2024, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to applicant’s filing from 12/13/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims foreign priority to DE 102023/135491, filed on 12/18/2023. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2024 and 03/02/2026 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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, the “motor” (claim 1), “detachably connected to the first shaft via a mechanical interface” (claim 1), “slip ring arrangement” (claim 7), “slip ring transmitter” (claim 7), “second quick-release coupling part with a receptacle” (claim 9), “consumer” (claim 13), “second mechanical interface” (claim 17), “a first mechanical interface and/or a second mechanical interface via which the angular gearing is mechanically detachably connected to the first shaft” (claim 17) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “30” has been used to designate both 30 and 33 in Figure 2. 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification calls 61 both a “first locking element 61 (safety latch)” and a “locking bolt 61” [0063].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation is the “mechanical power transmission means” in claim 1. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
the “coupling device” in claim 1, because A) the word “device” is used as a generic placeholder for “means”, since “device” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning, B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (for “coupling”), C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
the “mechanical interface” in claim 1, because A) the word “interface” is used as a generic placeholder for “means”, since “interface” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning, B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (for detachably connecting), C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
the “damping element” in claim 6, because A) the word “element” is used as a generic placeholder for “means”, since “element” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning, B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (for “damping”), C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
the “locking device” in claim 11, because A) the word “device” is used as a generic placeholder for “means”, since “device” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning, B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (for “locking”), C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
the “first locking element” in claim 12, because A) the word “element” is used as a generic placeholder for “means”, since “element” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning, B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (for “locking”), C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
the “second locking element” in claim 12, because A) the word “element” is used as a generic placeholder for “means”, since “element” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning, B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (for “locking”), C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
the “third locking element” in claim 12, because A) the word “element” is used as a generic placeholder for “means”, since “element” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning, B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (for “locking”), C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The “coupling device” will be interpreted as “a slewing ring 23 in the form of a live ring” [0049].
The “mechanical interface” will be interpreted as a “quick release coupling” [0055].
The “damping element” will be interpreted as “elastomer bearings” [0057].
The “first locking element” will be interpreted as “a safety latch” and/or a “locking bolt” [0063].
The “second locking element” will be interpreted as “a receptacle… located on the upper side of the undercarriage 12 at the corresponding and suitably defined position to the side of the first slewing ring 33, into which the locking bolt 61 can be retracted in a first position” [0063].
The “third locking element” will be interpreted as a “receptacle 63 on the superstructure 14” [0065]
The “locking device” will be interpreted as “a first locking element, which is connected to the bearing arrangement and which can optionally be brought into engagement with a second locking element arranged on the undercarriage or with a third locking element arranged on the superstructure” [0035]. Since the i) first, ii) second and iii) third locking element are each being interpreted under 112(f), the “locking device” will be interpreted as i) “a safety latch” or a “locking bolt” [0063], ii) “a receptacle… located on the upper side of the undercarriage 12 at the corresponding and suitably defined position to the side of the first slewing ring 33, into which the locking bolt 61 can be retracted in a first position” [0063], and iii) a “receptacle 63 on the superstructure 14” [0065].
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 3, line 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a mechanical interface” should read, “the mechanical interface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3, line 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “rotatably connects it” should read, “rotatably connects the power transmission means”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5, lines 1-2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the bearing arrangement is arranged within the second slewing ring” should read, “the bearing arrangement comprises a first slewing ring that is arranged within the second slewing ring” (in order to avoid lack of antecedent basis for “the first slewing ring”). For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted this way. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13, lines 2-3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and all consumers of the superstructure are driven” should read, “and the at least one consumer of the superstructure is driven”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14, line 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “is removably from” should read, “is removable from”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14, lines 4-5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “without superstructure” should read, “without the superstructure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15, lines 1-6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “A drive system for a mobile work machine according to claim 1, comprising a motor, a first shaft which can be mechanically driven by the motor, a second shaft, and a power transmission means which is detachably connected to the first shaft and/or to the second shaft via a mechanical interface and mechanically connects the two shafts to one another, wherein the drive system optionally comprises a slewing ring via which the power transmission means can be connected or is connected rotatably to an undercarriage of the work machine” should read, “A drive system for the mobile work machine according to claim 1, comprising the motor, the first shaft which can be mechanically driven by the motor, the second shaft, and the power transmission means which is detachably connected to the first shaft and/or to the second shaft via the mechanical interface and mechanically connects the two shafts to one another, wherein the drive system optionally comprises a slewing ring via which the power transmission means can be connected or is connected rotatably to the undercarriage of the work machine”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19, line 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprises first slewing ring part” should read, “comprises a first slewing ring part”. 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 1-20 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.
Claims 12 and 15 recite the phrase “optionally”. It is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase “optionally” are part of the claim or not.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
In the present instance, claim 12 recites, “the locking device comprises a first locking element, which is connected to the bearing arrangement”, and the claim also recites “and which can optionally be brought into engagement with a second locking element arranged on the undercarriage or with a third locking element arranged on the superstructure, wherein the locking device comprises a Bowden cable". It is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase “optionally” are part of the claim or not.
Claim 15 recites, “A drive system for a mobile work machine according to claim 1, comprising a motor, a first shaft which can be mechanically driven by the motor, a second shaft, and a power transmission means which is detachably connected to the first shaft and/or to the second shaft via a mechanical interface and mechanically connects the two shafts to one another”, and the claim also recites “wherein the drive system optionally comprises a slewing ring via which the power transmission means can be connected or is connected rotatably to an undercarriage of the work machine". It is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase “optionally” are part of the claim or not.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, claim 17 recites the limitation “the power transmission means is or comprises an angular gearing which comprises a first mechanical interface and/or a second mechanical interface via which the angular gearing is mechanically detachably connected to the first shaft and/or to the second shaft”. This limitation is unclear and indefinite, because claim 1 recites, “the power transmission means is mounted rotatably on the undercarriage and is detachably connected to the second shaft via a mechanical interface, or in that the power transmission means is mounted on the superstructure for conjoint rotation and is detachably connected to the first shaft via a mechanical interface”. Therefore, it is unclear and indefinite a) if the “first mechanical interface” is the same as (at least one of) the “mechanical interface” from claim 1, b) if the “second mechanical interface” is the same as (at least one of) the “mechanical interface” from claim 1, c) whether the “mechanical interface” “connected to the second shaft” in claim 1 is the same as the “mechanical interface” “connected to the first shaft”. Therefore, it is unclear if there are one, two, three or four mechanical interfaces. From the Drawings and Specification, it appears that there are two, but this is not clear from the limitations of claims 1 and 17. Therefore, claims 1 and 17 are each rejected under 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Accordingly, claims 2-20 are rejected by virtue of dependence from claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation, “the first shaft and/or the second shaft comprises a universal-joint shaft, and/or wherein the first shaft comprises a king shaft and an angular gearing”, this claim is unclear and indefinite because it is unclear how the first shaft can include angular gearing, since the angular gearing is a separate element (power transmission means 30) from the first shaft (51), as claimed in claim 1 (“a first shaft that can be mechanically driven by the motor and that is mechanically connected to a second shaft of the superstructure via the power transmission means”). Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morath (US 2013/0025948).
Regarding claim 1, Morath discloses a mobile work machine {1: “mobile crane 1” [0030]}, comprising a movable undercarriage {2: “undercarriage 2” [0037]}, a superstructure {3: “uppercarriage 3” [0032]} which is rotatably mounted {about “the axis of rotation 4” [0032]} on the undercarriage {2} and which is separably connected {“Furthermore, a clutch 50 is provided in the undercarriage 2, which actively uncouples the undercarriage drive close to the branching point for the uppercarriage drive and thus lowers the friction losses” [0037]} to the undercarriage {2} via a coupling device {9+50 (Fig. 1): “roller-bearing slewing ring 9” [0039]}, and a mechanical power transmission means {13: “angular transmission 13” [0032]}, wherein the undercarriage {2} comprises a motor {10 (combustion motor): “engine 10” [0034]} and a first shaft {16 (lower horizontal shaft 16 coupled directly to the engine 10 in Fig. 2)} that can be mechanically driven by the motor {10 (Fig. 2)} and that is mechanically connected {via intermediate shafts 16, upper and lower power transmission means 13, and clutches 18 and 50 (Fig. 2)} to a second shaft {16 (upper horizontal shaft 16 coupling the upper angular transmission 13 and the pump transfer gear 14 in Fig. 2)} of the superstructure {3} via the power transmission means {13}, wherein the power transmission means {13 (upper angular transmission 13 in Fig. 2)} is mounted on the superstructure {3} for conjoint rotation {about “the axis of rotation 4” [0032]} and is detachably connected to the first shaft {16 (lower horizontal shaft 16 coupled directly to the engine 10)} via a mechanical interface {18, and/or 50: “Since a further objective of the present disclosure is the saving of fuel, it is very advantageous that, independent of where it is located, the uppercarriage drive can be switched off, for example, via a clutch 18. Furthermore, a clutch 50 is provided in the undercarriage 2, which actively uncouples the undercarriage drive close to the branching point for the uppercarriage drive and thus lowers the friction losses” [0037]; “Here, a solution, as shown in FIG. 2, would lead to a very long drive shaft 12 up to the angular transmission 13. In this case of application, the drive shafts 16 of the axles also can alternatively be used. The angular transmission 13 (cf. FIG. 2) thus can be driven by an output shaft which is branched off at an axle drive. In this solution, a clutch may be provided at each axle, so that the respective axle can be uncoupled from the drive train, in order to prevent the wheels from also rotating during the crane operation” [0051]}.
Regarding claim 2, Morath discloses the power transmission means {13} is or comprises an angular gearing {“angular transmissions 13, which can either have a gear ratio of 1:1 or a step-up to the fast mode” [0038]}.
Regarding claim 8, Morath discloses the first shaft {16 (lower horizontal shaft 16 coupled directly to the engine 10 in Fig. 2)} comprises a king shaft {16 (lower horizontal shaft 16 coupled directly to the engine 10 and transmission 13 in Fig. 2)} and an angular gearing {13 (bottom transmission 13 in Fig. 2): “angular transmissions 13, which can either have a gear ratio of 1:1 or a step-up to the fast mode” [0038]}.
Regarding claim 13, Morath discloses the superstructure {3} does not have a drive motor {Fig. 2}, and/or wherein the superstructure {3} comprises at least one consumer {14} and all consumers {14} of the superstructure {3} are driven directly or indirectly via the second shaft {16 (upper horizontal shaft 16 coupling the upper angular transmission 13 and the pump transfer gear 14 in Fig. 2)}.
Regarding claim 15, Morath discloses a drive system {Fig. 2} for a mobile work machine {1} according to claim 1, comprising a motor {10 (combustion motor): “engine 10” [0034]}, a first shaft {16 (lower horizontal shaft 16 coupled directly to the engine 10 in Fig. 2)} which can be mechanically driven by the motor {10}, a second shaft {16 (upper horizontal shaft 16 coupling the upper angular transmission 13 and the pump transfer gear 14 in Fig. 2)}, and a power transmission means {13: “angular transmission 13” [0032]} which is detachably connected to the first shaft {16 (lower horizontal shaft 16 coupled directly to the engine 10 in Fig. 2)} and to the second shaft {16 (upper horizontal shaft 16 coupling the upper angular transmission 13 and the pump transfer gear 14 in Fig. 2)} via a mechanical interface and mechanically connects the two shafts to one another {18, and/or 50: “Since a further objective of the present disclosure is the saving of fuel, it is very advantageous that, independent of where it is located, the uppercarriage drive can be switched off, for example, via a clutch 18. Furthermore, a clutch 50 is provided in the undercarriage 2, which actively uncouples the undercarriage drive close to the branching point for the uppercarriage drive and thus lowers the friction losses” [0037]; “Here, a solution, as shown in FIG. 2, would lead to a very long drive shaft 12 up to the angular transmission 13. In this case of application, the drive shafts 16 of the axles also can alternatively be used. The angular transmission 13 (cf. FIG. 2) thus can be driven by an output shaft which is branched off at an axle drive. In this solution, a clutch may be provided at each axle, so that the respective axle can be uncoupled from the drive train, in order to prevent the wheels from also rotating during the crane operation” [0051]}, wherein the drive system {Fig. 2} optionally comprises a slewing ring {9, 20} via which the power transmission means {13} can be connected or is connected rotatably to an undercarriage {2} of the work machine {1}.
Regarding claim 16, Morath discloses the work machine {1} is a mobile crane {“mobile crane 1” [0030]}.
Regarding claim 17, Morath discloses the power transmission means {13} is or comprises an angular gearing {“angular transmissions 13, which can either have a gear ratio of 1:1 or a step-up to the fast mode” [0038]} which comprises a first mechanical interface {18} and a second mechanical interface {50} via which the angular gearing {13} is mechanically detachably connected to the first shaft {16 (lower horizontal shaft 16 coupled directly to the engine 10 in Fig. 2)}.
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 3-4, 7, 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morath in view of Kay (US 4,397,396), as cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 3, Morath discloses the power transmission means {13 (upper)} is mounted rotatably {via 9} on the undercarriage {2}, wherein the work machine {1} further comprises a bearing arrangement {9} which supports the power transmission means {13 (upper)} and rotatably connects it to the undercarriage {2}.
However, Morath does not explicitly disclose the power transmission means is mounted rotatably on the undercarriage and is detachably connected to the second shaft via a mechanical interface.
Kay teaches {Figs. 23, 25} power transmission means {106} is mounted rotatably {via 98A+99} on the undercarriage {1} and is detachably connected to the second shaft {104a} via a mechanical interface {116}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile work machine, as disclosed by Morath, such that the power transmission means is mounted rotatably on the undercarriage and is detachably connected to the second shaft via a mechanical interface, as taught by Kay, in order to “permit a certain amount of misalignment and permit the use of an open center construction between the superstructure and main frame” {Col. 9, lines 53-55}.
Regarding claim 4, Morath and Kay disclose all the aspects of claim 3. Morath further discloses the coupling device {9+50} comprises a second slewing ring {9: “roller-bearing slewing ring 9” [0039]}.
Regarding claim 7, Morath and Kay disclose all the aspects of claim 3. Morath further discloses the bearing arrangement {9} comprises a driver {16 (vertical shaft between upper and lower 13 in Fig. 2)} which interacts with a slip ring arrangement {20} of the coupling device {9+50} and transmits a rotary movement of the bearing arrangement {9} to a slip ring transmitter {20} of the slip ring arrangement {20: “the hydraulic rotary union often used so far can be omitted. The energy is transmitted mechanically or substantially mechanically. Only a small slip ring 20 is necessary for transmitting the electrical signals and energy” [0043]}.
Regarding claim 9, Morath discloses all the aspects of claim 1. However, Morath does not explicitly disclose the mechanical interface is or comprises a quick-release coupling, wherein the quick-release coupling comprises a first quick-release coupling part with a profiled pin and a second quick-release coupling part with a receptacle profiled to complement the pin, which are detachably connectable to one another in a frictionally engaged and/or form-fitting manner.
Kay teaches {Fig. 25} the mechanical interface {116} is or comprises a quick-release coupling {116}, wherein the quick-release coupling {116} comprises a first quick-release coupling part {portion of 116 at shaft 107} with a profiled pin {pin portion of 116} and a second quick-release coupling part {portion of 116 at gear box 106} with a receptacle {receptacle portion of 116} profiled to complement the pin {pin portion of 116}, which are detachably connectable to one another in a frictionally engaged manner {Fig. 25}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile work machine, as disclosed by Morath, such that the mechanical interface is or comprises a quick-release coupling, wherein the quick-release coupling comprises a first quick-release coupling part with a profiled pin and a second quick-release coupling part with a receptacle profiled to complement the pin, which are detachably connectable to one another in a frictionally engaged and/or form-fitting manner, as taught by Kay, in order to “permit a certain amount of misalignment and permit the use of an open center construction between the superstructure and main frame” {Col. 9, lines 53-55}.
Regarding claim 18, Morath and Kay disclose all the aspects of claim 3. Morath further discloses the bearing arrangement {9} comprises a first slewing ring {9} connected to the undercarriage {2 (Fig. 1)} and formed as a rolling bearing {“roller-bearing slewing ring 9” [0039]}.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morath and Kay as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Guan (CN 114671357).
Regarding claim 5, Morath and Kay disclose all the aspects of claim 4. However, Morath does not explicitly disclose the bearing arrangement comprises a first slewing ring that is arranged within the second slewing ring, wherein the first slewing ring is configured so as to be rotatable independently of the second slewing ring.
Guan teaches {Figs. 1-2} a bearing arrangement {400} comprises a first slewing ring {404} that is arranged within the second slewing ring {401}, wherein the first slewing ring {404} is configured so as to be rotatable independently of the second slewing ring {401: “the slewing bearing mechanism 400 includes a first slewing mechanism 401, The slewing platform 402 , the second slewing mechanism 403 and the third slewing mechanism 404 ; the slewing platform 402 is rotatably mounted on the vehicle body 100 through the first slewing mechanism 401; The hoisting mechanism 300 is rotatably mounted on the slewing platform 402 through the third slewing mechanism 404” [0057]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile work machine, as disclosed by Morath and Kay, such that the bearing arrangement comprises a first slewing ring that is arranged within the second slewing ring, wherein the first slewing ring is configured so as to be rotatable independently of the second slewing ring, as taught by Guan, “In order to facilitate the replacement of equipment” and “to realize convenient and efficient operation” [0005].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morath in view of Nakaya (JP H10192924), as cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 10, Morath discloses all the aspects of claim 1. However, Morath does not explicitly disclose a holding device, with which the first or second shaft separated from the power transmission means can be releasably connected in a bearing position.
Nakaya teaches that “in the case of a shaft coupling, a shaft coupling holding device for performing centering when desorbing is required” [0048].
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile work machine, as disclosed by Morath, to include a holding device, with which the first or second shaft separated from the power transmission means can be releasably connected in a bearing position, as taught by Nakaya, in order to center the shaft [0048].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morath in view of Jurgens (GB 2046701).
Regarding claim 10, Morath discloses the mobile work machine according to claim 1, which is formed as a mobile crane {1: “mobile crane 1” [0030]}, wherein the undercarriage {2} comprises a wheeled chassis {Fig. 1} and the superstructure {3} comprises a boom {7: “boom 7” [0032]}, wherein the undercarriage {2} is movable independently without superstructure {3}.
However, Morath does not explicitly disclose the superstructure is removable from the undercarriage via the coupling device and can be transported separately.
Jurgens teaches the superstructure {12} is removable from the undercarriage {10 (Figs. 1-5)} via the coupling device {14 (Figs. 1-14): “slewing ring 14, which can comprise conventional bearings” (Pg. 3, lines 31-32); “means on said crawler side frame for detachable securement thereto” (Claim 8)} and can be transported separately {Fig. 17}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile work machine, as disclosed by Morath, such that the superstructure is removable from the undercarriage via the coupling device and can be transported separately, as taught by Jurgens, so that “a crane of this invention will be transported to a job site by means of transporter body modules 17” {Pg. 4, lines 47-49}.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morath and Kay as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 110626966).
Regarding claim 19, Morath and Kay disclose all the aspects of claim 4. Morath further discloses the second slewing ring {9}, is formed as a rolling bearing {“roller-bearing slewing ring 9” [0039]} and which comprises first slewing ring part {bottom portion of 9 (Fig. 1)} connected to the undercarriage {2} and a second slewing ring part {top portion of 9 (Fig. 1)} connected to the superstructure {3}.
However, Morath does not explicitly disclose the second slewing ring, is formed as a rolling bearing and which comprises first slewing ring part connected to the undercarriage and a second slewing ring part connected to the superstructure, which are detachably connected to one another via a quick-release coupling device, which comprises a boltable tongue-and-groove connection (emphasis added).
Zhang teaches {Fig. 3} a slewing ring {1} comprising a first slewing ring part {2} and a second slewing ring part {4}, which are detachably connected to one another via a quick-release coupling device {3+21+42}, which comprises a boltable tongue-and-groove connection {bolts 31 inserting through grooves 21 and 42: “When the tooth side clearance of the rotary reducer 1 and the slewing support 5 needs to be adjusted, first remove the bolt group 3, remove the pressure plate 2, and slowly lift the rotary Reducer 1, the external spline 11 of the rotary reducer 1 and the internal spline 41 of the rotary support 4 are completely disengaged, and then the rotary reducer 1 is rotated as a whole around the center line A of the mounting hole until the rotary The gap between the reducer 1 and the slewing bearing 5 is adjusted to the optimal state” [0047]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second slewing ring part of the mobile work machine, as disclosed by Morath and Kay, such that they are detachably connected to one another via a quick-release coupling device, which comprises a boltable tongue-and-groove connection, as taught by Zhang, so that “the slewing bearing 5 is adjusted to the optimal state” [0047].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 11-12 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 6, Morath and Kay disclose all the aspects of claim 3. However, Morath does not explicitly disclose the bearing arrangement comprises at least one damping element, via which the power transmission means is connected to the undercarriage in a vibration-damped manner, wherein the bearing arrangement comprises an arrangement of several damping elements symmetrical to an axis of rotation of the power transmission means.
Xu (CN 116495644) teaches {Figs. 1-2} a bearing arrangement comprises at least one damping element, via which the power transmission means is connected to the undercarriage in a vibration-damped manner {“An energy recovery and vibration reduction slewing mechanism applied to tower cranes, including a base, a transmission plate, a slewing plate, a hydraulic slewing actuator and an energy recovery mechanism” [0010]}.
However, none of the prior art of record teach the bearing arrangement comprises an arrangement of several damping elements symmetrical to an axis of rotation of the power transmission means.
Therefore, regarding claim 6, none of the prior art of record, filed before the effective filing date, either alone or in obvious combination, disclose the mobile work machine according to claim 3, wherein the bearing arrangement comprises at least one damping element, via which the power transmission means is connected to the undercarriage in a vibration-damped manner, wherein the bearing arrangement comprises an arrangement of several damping elements symmetrical to an axis of rotation of the power transmission means (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 11, Morath and Kay disclose all the aspects of claim 3. However, Morath does not explicitly disclose a locking device by means of which the power transmission means can be locked reversibly and in a rotationally rigid manner either with the undercarriage or with the superstructure, wherein the power transmission means is lockable in a rotationally rigid manner via the locking device to the superstructure in a working state in which the superstructure is connected to the undercarriage, and to the undercarriage in a transport state in which the superstructure is separated from the undercarriage.
Uderhardt (DE 102014/004803), as cited by Applicant, teaches a locking device {25} by means of which the power transmission means {17} can be locked reversibly and in a rotationally rigid manner either with the undercarriage {2} or with the superstructure {3}, wherein the power transmission means {17} is lockable in a rotationally rigid manner via the locking device {25} to the superstructure {3} in a working state {“during the driving operation”} in which the superstructure {3} is connected to the undercarriage {2}.
However, none of the prior art of record teach the power transmission means is lockable in a rotationally rigid manner via the locking device to the undercarriage in a transport state in which the superstructure is separated from the undercarriage.
Therefore, regarding claim 11, none of the prior art of record, filed before the effective filing date, either alone or in obvious combination, disclose the mobile work machine according claim 3, further comprising a locking device by means of which the power transmission means can be locked reversibly and in a rotationally rigid manner either with the undercarriage or with the superstructure, wherein the power transmission means is lockable in a rotationally rigid manner via the locking device to the superstructure in a working state in which the superstructure is connected to the undercarriage, and to the undercarriage in a transport state in which the superstructure is separated from the undercarriage (emphasis added).
Accordingly, claim 12 would be in condition for allowance by virtue of dependence from claim 11.
Regarding claim 20, none of the prior art of record, filed before the effective filing date, either alone or in obvious combination, disclose the mobile work machine according to claim 10, wherein the first or second shaft separated from the power transmission means can be releasably connected via a quick-release coupling, wherein the power transmission means is arranged mounted rotatably on the undercarriage and the holding device is arranged on the superstructure (emphasis added).
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel M Keck whose telephone number is (571)272-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571)270-5985. 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.
/Daniel M. Keck/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights