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 .
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Claim 7 recites, “Pressure accumulator” which is not shown in the drawings
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 10-11, 13-15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Gabriel (WO 2022037960 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gabriel discloses a crane having active fallback protection (see Abstract), the crane comprising a carrier structure (11; see Fig. 1), a boom (10; see Fig. 1), which is connected to the carrier structure so as to be pivotable about a horizontal tilt axis (see Fig. 1), a guy frame (12; see Fig. 1), which is connected to the carrier structure and via which the boom is guyed by means of a length-variable guy system (see Fig. 1 for guy frame connected to carrier structure via the boom), and a fallback protection device (3; see Fig. 1), which is arranged on the guy frame and is configured to block or brake tipping of the boom towards the guy frame in a critical state of the crane (see Page 6, Para. 1) wherein the fallback protection device comprises at least one stabilizing strut (30; se Fig. 1), with which the boom comes into contact when it tilts back by a defined boom angle (see page 6, Para. 1 and Fig. 1), wherein the stabilizing strut is configured as a rigid element (30; see Fig. 1), which follows the boom above the defined boom angle and can be actively inserted and/or withdrawn relative to the guy frame by means of a cable winch system (13; see Fig. 1-2) of the fallback protection device (see Page 5, Para. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Gabriel discloses the crane as claimed in claim 1, wherein the stabilizing strut can be actively inserted and/or withdrawn by means of the cable winch system (13; see Page 5, Para. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Gabriel discloses the crane as claimed in claim 1, wherein the stabilizing strut can be actively withdrawn via the cable winch system, and wherein the stabilizing strut can be passively inserted (see Fig. 1-2 for the strut (30) to be inserted and withdrawn based on the cable).
Regarding claim 4, Gabriel discloses the crane as claimed in claim 1, wherein a receiving apparatus (34; see Fig. 1) is arranged on the boom, with which apparatus the stabilizing strut comes into contact when the defined boom angle is reached (see Page 6, Para. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Gabriel discloses the crane as claimed in claim 1, wherein the stabilizing strut is pivotally mounted on the guy frame (see Fig. 4A-4C; stabilizing strut can change orientation based on angle of the boom, meaning strut is pivotally mounted), in order to compensate for a vertical movement of a contact region of the boom, which is contacted by the stabilizing strut, during a pivoting movement of the boom above the defined boom angle (see Fig. 4A-4C).
Regarding claim 8, Gabriel discloses the crane as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fallback protection device comprises a brake device (see Page 4, Para. 7), which, when activated, actively or passively brakes insertion of the stabilizing strut.
Regarding claim 10, Gabriel discloses the crane as claimed in claim 8, wherein the fallback protection device comprises at least one actuation unit (32; see Fig. 2) comprising a mount which is fastened to the guy frame (see Fig. 2) and in which the stabilizing strut is movably mounted (see Fig. 2 for strut being moved in), wherein the actuation unit comprises the cable winch system (13; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Gabriel discloses the crane as claimed in claim 10, wherein the fallback protection device comprises a brake device (see Page 4, Para. 7), which, when activated, actively or passively brakes insertion of the stabilizing strut (see Page 4, Para. 7), and wherein the actuation unit comprises the brake device (see Page 4, Para. 7; brake device acts on pinion), wherein the brake device is integrated in the mount or the cable winch system (see Page 4, Para. 7; brake device acts on pinion).
Regarding claim 13, Gabriel discloses the crane as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fallback protection device comprises at least two stabilizing struts (30; see Fig. 1), which can be inserted and/or withdrawn via separate cable winch systems (see Fig. 2 for struts being inserted via cables).
Regarding claim 14, Gabriel discloses the crane as claimed in claim 1, wherein the carrier structure (11; see Fig. 1) comprises a slewing platform (see Page 5, Para. 3 for another rotatable element frame) which is mounted on a substructure so as to be rotatable about a vertical axis of rotation and on which the boom (see Page 5, Para. 3), the guy frame and the fallback protection device are arranged (see Fig. 1), wherein the crane is a deck crane (see background of the invention), and the substructure is connected to a ship’s hull (see background of the invention).
Regarding claim 15, Gabriel discloses the crane as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fallback protection device for a crane is according to claim 1 (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Gabriel discloses the crane as claimed in claim 5, wherein the stabilizing strut (30; see Fig. 2) has a linear shape (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Gabriel discloses the crane as claimed in claim 8, wherein the activation takes place automatically by means of a control apparatus when a critical state is identified or whenever the boom comes to a stop, wherein the brake device comprises an active frictional or positive-engagement brake system or a passive brake system that is based on a self-locking wedge (see Page 4, Para. 7 for the brake assembly).
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) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabriel (WO 2022037960 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 105398972 A).
Regarding claim 6, Gabriel discloses the crane as claimed in 1.
Gabriel fails to disclose wherein the stabilizing strut has a curved shape and is configured such that a vertical movement of a contact region of the boom, which is contacted by the stabilizing strut, during a pivoting movement of the boom above the defined boom angle corresponds to the vertical movement of an end portion of the stabilizing strut that contacts the contact region.
However, Zhang teaches a crane wherein the stabilizing strut has a curved shape (see Page 3, Para. 10; ‘anti-falling stay bar’) and is configured such that a vertical movement of a contact region of the boom, which is contacted by the stabilizing strut, during a pivoting movement of the boom above the defined boom angle corresponds to the vertical movement of an end portion of the stabilizing strut that contacts the contact region (see Page 3, Para. 10).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the stabilizing strut has a curved shape, on the crane of Gabriel, as taught by Zhang, in order to prevent the overshoot of the minimum amplitude position of the crane arm to overturn backwards (see Page 3, Para. 10).
Regarding claim 19, Gabriel, in view of Zhang, discloses the crane as claimed in claim 6, further disclosing wherein the stabilizing strut (30; see Fig. 2) is not pivotally mounted on the guy frame (see Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabriel (WO 2022037960 A1) in view of Wijning (US 20230331524 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Gabriel discloses the crane as claimed in claim 1.
Gabriel fails to disclose the crane further comprising a detection apparatus comprising a sensor system for detecting a critical state of the crane, including a load shift, wherein the crane further comprises a control unit, which receives data from the detection apparatus and is configured to actuate a locking device or a brake device of the fallback protection device when a critical state is identified.
However, Wijning teaches a crane further comprising a detection apparatus comprising a sensor system for detecting a critical state of the crane, including a load shift (see Para. 0026), wherein the crane further comprises a control unit (see Para. 0026), which receives data from the detection apparatus and is configured to actuate a locking device or a brake device of the fallback protection device when a critical state is identified (see Para. 0026).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce disclose the crane further comprising a detection apparatus comprising a sensor system for detecting a critical state of the crane, including a load shift, wherein the crane further comprises a control unit, which receives data from the detection apparatus and is configured to actuate a locking device or a brake device of the fallback protection device when a critical state is identified on the crane of Gabriel, as taught by Wijning, in order to monitor the loss of a load (see Para. 0026).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabriel (WO 2022037960 A1) in view of Campbell (US 3845865 A).
Regarding claim 16, Gabriel discloses the crane as claimed in claim 2.
Gabriel fails to disclose wherein the cable winch system optionally comprises a cable winch configured as a traversing winch, on which a cable is supported which is guided to different ends of the stabilizing strut, over a plurality of deflection rollers, and is fastened there.
However, Campbell teaches a crane wherein the cable winch system optionally comprises a cable winch configured as a traversing winch, on which a cable is supported which is guided to different ends of the stabilizing strut, over a plurality of deflection rollers, and is fastened there (see Col. 2, lines 50-65).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the cable winch system optionally comprises a cable winch configured as a traversing winch, on which a cable is supported which is guided to different ends of the stabilizing strut, over a plurality of deflection rollers, and is fastened there on the crane of Gabriel, as taught by Campbell, to allow the hook to be hoisted or lowered into position while the trolley is traversing (see Col. 2, lines 50-65).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabriel (WO 2022037960 A1) in view of Weterings (WO 2014025253 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Gabriel discloses the crane as claimed in claim 17.
Gabriel fails to disclose wherein the receiving apparatus has a funnel-shaped opening region, into which an end of the stabilizing strut facing away from the guy frame is inserted when contacting the receiving apparatus.
However, Weterings teaches a crane wherein the receiving apparatus comprises a funnel shape (see Page 8, Para. 11 for receiver having a funnel shape).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the receiving apparatus has a funnel-shaped opening region, into which an end of the stabilizing strut facing away from the guy frame is inserted when contacting the receiving apparatus on the crane of Gabriel, as taught by Weterings, in order to receive a suspension part (see Page 8, Para. 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7 and 12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHMAN A QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-6262. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/REHMAN A QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights