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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 28, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 10 and 11. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the to” on lines 8 and 10 appears to be confusing and unclear. 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 1-6 and 10-11 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 1 recites "at least one sheave block” (lines 1-2 and 6) associated with the crane block. Claim 10 recites "at least one sheave block” (lines 2-3) associated with the crane block. Claim 1 also recites "sheave blocks” (lines 8 and 10). The plural inclusion of "sheave blocks" could lead to confusion as to whether subsequent recitations of "sheave blocks" are one and the same with “at least one sheave block”. The same issue of multiple inclusion can be seen, for example, on claims 4, 10, and 11. Defining “sheave blocks” as “the sheave blocks” would further enhance the clarity of the claims.
Claims 2-4 and 6 each depend from claim 1, which has a 112(b) issue, and therefore, claims 2-4 and 6 have the same defect.
Claim 5 depends from claim 2, which depends from claim 1 with a 112(b) issue. Therefore, claim 5 has the same defect.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/130254 A1 in view of Conrad et al (US 2010/0252522 A1).
As to claim 1, WO 2021/130254 A1 discloses a method for decoupling a part of a crane block (35,41), as illustrated in Figures 1-12b, comprising at least one sheave block (45,47) comprising at least one sheave (45a) from a crane boom (15) of a crane (10) mounted onto a vessel (1), the method comprising positioning the crane boom in an inclined position (see Figure 1); and lowering the part of the crane block towards the vessel (see Figure 1). However, WO 2021/130254 A1 doesn’t show including a step to connect an auxiliary line to the at least one sheave block.
Conrad et al teaches a mobile crane having a boom (5) connecting to an auxiliary line (10) to an auxiliary boom (3).
To provide the sheave block of WO 2021/130254 A1 with an auxiliary line would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Conrad et al, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., one skilled in the art would have recognized that the auxiliary line used in Conrad et al would allow the crane boom of WO 2021/130254 A1 to be temporarily attached to the sheave block and later removed therefrom.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/130254 A1
As to claim 7, WO 2021/130254 A1 discloses a vessel (1) comprising a crane (10), as illustrated in Figures 1-12b, comprising a crane boom (15) with at least one crane block (35,41), the at least one crane block comprising at least one sheave block (45,47) comprising at least one sheave (45a) of which at least one sheave block is decouplable from a part of the at least one crane block, the vessel being provided with a boom rest (19) to receive the crane boom in a rest position, wherein the vessel further is provided with a cradle for receiving the part of the at least one crane block and decoupling the part of the at least one crane block from the at least one decouplable sheave block when the part of the at least one crane block is in the cradle and the crane boom is in an inclined position (see Figure 1). However, WO 2021/130254 A1 doesn’t show that the crane boom is longer than a length of the vessel.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the crane boom to be longer than a length of the vessel, 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 12-13 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.
Claims 2-6 and 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Thompson, Drent, Zollondz, Gottwald, Hansen, and Waisanen are cited as being relevant art, because each prior art discloses a sheave block.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 am - 3:30 pm EST.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
STEPHEN VU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/STEPHEN A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
