Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status Rejections
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 § 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 3, 8, 9, 15 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 3 states “the eyelets” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 states “the first jaw” and “the second jaw” lack proper antecedent basis. The elements are introduced for the first time in claim 5 even though claim 8 depends from 1.
Claim 9 states “the lock” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 15 states “the lock” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 5-8, 11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Gong et al. (CN 112573358)
PNG
media_image1.png
663
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
709
731
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1:
Gong et al. teaches a lifting tool (Fig. 1) comprising:
a grip (9) configured to engage about the shaft of a fastener (claim 1 first sentence);
a yoke (3) for connecting the lifting tool to a crane hook (1)
a suspension adapted to suspend the grip from the yoke such that the grip is freely rotatable about a horizontal axis (paragraph 61 last sentence).
Gong et al. does not explicitly teach engagement with the shaft of a fastener. Gong et al. is
capable of engaging the shaft of a fastener and/or that the article being handled does not impart patentability to the claim per MPEP 2115. The fastener, shaft, and bolt will be described as an object with Gong et al. in subsequent claims.
Regarding claim 3:
Gong et al. teaches a lifting tool according to claim 1, wherein the horizontal axis extends through the eyelets and essentially coincides with a diameter of an object enclosed by the grip (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5:
Gong et al. teaches a lifting tool according to claim 1, wherein the grip comprises a first jaw and a second jaw rotatably connected to the first jaw (9).
Regarding claim 6:
Gong et al. teaches a lifting tool according to claim 1, comprising a diameter adjustment (12) or adjusting a working diameter of the grip.
Regarding claim 7:
Gong et al. teaches a lifting tool according to claim 1, wherein the grip comprises a non-slip material (8) arranged to lie against the surface of the object.
Regarding claim 8:
Gong et al. teaches a lifting tool according to claim 1, comprising a lock (11-14) configured to secure the position of the second jaw relative to the first jaw.
Regarding claim 11:
Gong et al. teaches a method of lifting an object from a horizontal position to a vertical position using a lifting tool according to claim 1, which method comprises the steps of
engaging the grip of the lifting tool about the shaft of the horizontally oriented object;
attaching the yoke of the lifting tool to a crane hook;
operating the crane to raise the lifting tool to a height at which the weight of the object causes the grip to rotate about its horizontal axis, allowing the object to assume the vertical position.
Regarding claim 15:
Gong et al. teaches a lifting tool according to claim 1, comprising a step of actuating the lock to release the grip from the object.
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.
Claim 2, 4, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (CN 112573358).
Regarding claim 2:
Gong et al. disclose the lifting tool according to claim 1. Gong et al. also disclose the suspension comprises a pair of eyelets on either side of the grip.
Gong et al. don’t disclose and a chain extending from each eyelet to an outer end of the yoke.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing was made to Gong et al. since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of steel wire rope and chain for their use in the art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to Gong et al. would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Doing so would enable so would allow for better suspension support for the lifting tool.
Regarding claim 4:
Gong et al. disclose the lifting tool according to claim 1.
Gong et al. don’t disclose the grip is dimensioned to engage about a cylindrical shaft with a diameter of at least 54 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice at the time of filing to Gong et al., since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Doing so would enable the increased load capacity and/or versatility of the gripper.
Regarding claim 10:
Gong et al. disclose the lifting tool according to claim 1.
Gong et al. don’t disclose the lifting tool adapted for use in lifting a fastener with weight of at least 40 kg.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice at the time of filing to Gong et al., since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Doing so would enable the increased load capacity and/or versatility of the gripper.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (CN 112573358) in view Lentz et al. (WO 2015073298).
Regarding claim 9:
Gong et al. disclose the lifting tool according to claim 1.
Gong et al. don’t disclose the lock is a cam-action indexing plunge.
On the other hand, Lentz et al. teach the lock is a cam-action indexing plunge (14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gong et al. in view of Lentz et al. to include a cam-action indexing plunge. Doing so would allow for the lock to be more secure when gripping and transporting.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (CN 112573358) in view Hitoshi (VN 10027985).
Regarding claim 12:
Gong et al. disclose the method of claim 11.
Gong et al. don’t disclose the method comprising a preparatory step of arranging a first nut and a second nut onto one end of the fastener shaft, with a gap between the first nut and the second nut to accommodate the grip.
On the other hand, Hitoshi teaches the method comprising a preparatory step of arranging a first nut (37) and a second nut (38) onto one end of the fastener shaft (B1), with a gap between the first nut and the second nut to accommodate the grip.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gong et al. in view of Hitoshi to include the two nuts with a gap for gripping. Doing so would allow the gripping for the fastener from horizontal to vertical be easier for transporting.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (CN 112573358) in view Arlaban et al. (US 20140175038).
Regarding claim 13:
Gong et al. disclose the method of claim 11.
Gong et al. don’t disclose the method of claim 11 wherein the lifting tool is deployed to lift a wind turbine tower flange fastener from ground level to the level of a tower flange.
On the other hand, Arlaban et al. teach the method of claim 11 wherein the lifting tool is deployed to lift a wind turbine tower flange fastener from ground level to the level of a tower flange.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gong et al. in view of Arlaban et al. to include lifting a wind turbine flange fastener. Doing so would enable the fastener to be secure when going from horizontal to vertical position.
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (CN 112573358) in view of acknowledged prior art.
Regarding claim 14:
Gong et al. disclose a method according to claim 11.
Gong et al. don’t disclose a method according to claim 11, comprising a step of operating the crane to lower the fastener shaft/bolt vertically into a flange through-hole.
On page 2, lines 1-5, in the background of instant application specification, it teaches the crane is then operated to raise the vertically suspended flange bolt to a desired location, for example to a level above a tower flange assembly, and to lower the flange bolt into a through-hole of the flange assembly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing was made to the instant application since the specification background states that this is a known approach for their use in the art. Doing so would enable so would allow the wind turbine to be more stable vertically for positioning it for operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Zubashenko et al. (SU 919972), Jensen (GB 191118367) and Li et al. (CN 113998580) disclose other configurations for the lifting tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIA AHADI whose telephone number is (571)270-3145. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-430pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/ELIA AHADI/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights