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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference to specific claims, for example, claim 1 in ¶0010 and claim 16 in ¶0043, is improper and should be avoided.
In ¶0069, “by reeling gup the hoist winch 6” should read
---by reeling up the hoist winch 5---.
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. 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 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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“fastening means” in claim 1, lines 9-10 and claim 20, lines 9-10.
“pick-up means” in claim 1, line 12 and claim 20, line 12.
“connections means” in claim 4, line 2.
“auxiliary rope fastening means” in claim 13, line 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Ketel (EP0312337A1), in view of Schaper (US2973942A), and in further view of Simon (US4277053A).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Van Ketel discloses a lifting system for a crane for generating a hoist rope pretension during a travel of a suspension element (11; Figure 1) of the crane, the lifting system comprising: a separable pretension hook block (15), and an auxiliary rope (AR; see Van Ketel annotated Figure 1 below) that is connected to the pretension hook block (15), the auxiliary rope (AR) is supported in a windable and unwindable manner on an auxiliary winch (18) arranged or installable on the crane (C; see Van Ketel annotated Figure 1E below), and that is guided via a deflection apparatus (DA) that is arranged or installable at a boom (B) of the crane (C), wherein the pretension hook block (15) comprises two hook block parts (UH, LH) that are connected to one another via the auxiliary rope (AR), and of which an upper hook block part (UH) has a fastening means (FM) for fastening the pretension hook block (15) to the suspension element (11) and a lower hook block part (LH) has a pick-up means (PM) for fastening a weight (17), but fails to teach wherein the two hook block parts that are releasably lockable to one another; an upper hook block part has a fastening means located at an upper side of the upper hook block for fastening; and wherein the pretension hook block comprises a guide mechanism by means of which the lower and upper hook block parts are configured to be brought into a defined locked position on bringing together.
PNG
media_image1.png
583
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Van Ketel, Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
337
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Van Ketel, Annotated Figure 1E
Schaper teaches a similar lifting system and further teaches wherein the two hook block parts (23; 26; Figure 1) that are releasably lockable to one another; and wherein the pretension hook block (23, 26) comprises a guide mechanism (GM; see Schaper annotated Figure 4 below) by means of which the lower and upper hook block parts (23; 26) are configured to be brought into a defined locked position on bringing together. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting system of Van Ketel to include the two hook block parts that are releasably lockable to one another as taught by Schaper in order to allow independent movement of the lower block part and the load when the two parts are unlocked and to provide lack of movement of the lower block part when the two parts are locked; and to include the guide mechanism as taught by Schaper in order to centralize and locate lower hook part with the upper hook part to prevent collision and damage to the rope and block components.
PNG
media_image3.png
280
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Schaper, Annotated Figure 4
Simon teaches a similar lifting system and further teaches wherein an upper hook block part (13) has a fastening means (FM; see Simon annotated Figure 4 below) located at an upper side of the upper hook block (13) for fastening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting system of Van Ketel to include the fastening means as taught by Simon in order to allow ease of access for connecting or disconnecting the line between the upper hook block and suspension element and to limit rotation of the upper hook block during the lifting of a load.
PNG
media_image4.png
158
241
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Simon, Annotated Figure 4
Regarding claim 2, Van Ketel discloses the above lifting system and further teaches wherein the upper hook block part (UH) comprises at least one first deflection pulley (UP; see Van Ketel annotated Figure 1 below) and the lower hook block part (LH) comprises at least one second deflection pulley (LP) via which the auxiliary rope (AR) is guided.
PNG
media_image5.png
583
336
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Van Ketel, Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claims 4 and 6-8, Van Ketel discloses the above lifting system, but fails to teach wherein the lower and upper hook block parts have connections means by an actuable locking mechanism for the releasable locking and lock automatically on bringing together to one another; and wherein the locking mechanism is actively or passively actuable on or after bringing together of the hook block parts.
Schaper teaches a similar lifting system and further teaches wherein the lower and upper hook block parts (23; 26) have connections means by an actuable locking mechanism (31, 33, 34; Figure 4) for the releasable locking and lock automatically on bringing together to one another; and wherein the locking mechanism (31, 33, 34) is actively or passively actuable on or after bringing together of the hook block parts (23; 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting system of Van Ketel to include connection means by an actuable locking mechanism for releasably locking and automatically locking the lower and upper hook block parts as taught by Schaper in order to allow independent movement of the lower block part and the load when the two parts are unlocked and to provide lack of movement of the lower block part when the two parts are locked; and to include the actively or passively actuable locking mechanism as taught by Schaper in order to provide automatic or ease of operating the locking mechanism for locking and unlocking to allow independent movement of the lower block part and the load when the two parts are unlocked and to provide lack of movement of the lower block part when the two parts are locked.
Regarding claim 5, Van Ketel discloses the above lifting system, but fails to teach wherein the lower and upper hook block parts are configured to be pinned by one or more pins.
Schaper teaches a similar lifting system. Schaper further teaches wherein the lower and upper hook block parts (23; 26) are configured to be pinned by one or more pins (34; column 3, lines 56-74, bosses or fingers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting system of Van Ketel to include the pins as taught by Schaper in order to provide proper visual and structural engagement for locking and provide lack of movement of the lower block part when the two parts are locked. Schaper teaches the locking members to be bosses or fingers which is known in the art to be in the form of pins or cylindrical projections from the surface.
Regarding claim 9, Van Ketel discloses the above lifting system, but fails to teach wherein the locking mechanism includes one or more of a spring element or a snap-in-mechanism.
Schaper teaches a similar lifting system. Schaper further teaches wherein the locking mechanism (31, 33, 34) includes one or more of a spring element or a snap-in-mechanism (31, 33; Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting system of Van Ketel to include the locking mechanism with a spring element or snap in mechanism as taught by Schaper in order to provide tension by springs to hold the coupling members away from each other so as not to engage accidently and help assist the coupling members towards each other to interlock with the pins.
Regarding claim 10, Van Ketel discloses the above lifting system and further teaches further comprising a hoist winch (14) on which a hoist rope (HR; see Van Ketel annotated Figure 1 below) connected to the suspension element (11) is supported in a windable and unwindable manner.
PNG
media_image6.png
583
336
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Van Ketel, Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 11, modified Van Ketel discloses the above lifting system and further teaches further comprising a crane control (Figures 1B-1C and 1J-1L; column 1, line 31 - column 2, line 52) that is configured to control the hoist winch (14) and the auxiliary winch (18) synchronized such that a weight (17) fastened to the pretension hook block (15) that is unlocked (from Schaper) is held suspended at a certain height or in a certain region above the ground during a travel of the suspension element (11) by reeling up the hoist winch (14) and simultaneously unreeling the auxiliary winch (18).
Regarding claim 13, Van Ketel discloses the above lifting system and further teaches having an auxiliary rope fastening means (AFM; see Van Ketel annotated Figure 1 below) for fastening the auxiliary rope (AR).
PNG
media_image7.png
298
407
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Van Ketel, Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 14, Van Ketel discloses the above lifting system and further teaches a method of lifting the suspension element (11) of the crane (C) using the lifting system, the method comprisingbut fails to teach unlocking the upper and lower hook block parts.
PNG
media_image1.png
583
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Van Ketel, Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
337
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Van Ketel, Annotated Figure 1E
Schaper teaches a similar lifting system and further teaches unlocking the upper and lower hook block parts (23; 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting system of Van Ketel to include unlocking the upper and lower hook block parts as taught by Schaper in order to allow independent movement of the lower block part and the load when the two parts are unlocked to compensate for relative motions and maintain an even distribution of load between the hoisting devices.
Regarding claim 15, Van Ketel discloses the above method of the lifting system and further teaches wherein the lower hook block part (LH) is raised by reeling up the auxiliary winch (18) and is brought together with the upper hook block part (UH) after placing down and releasing of the weight (17), but fails to teach wherein the lower hook block part is brought together with the upper hook block after placing down and releasing of the weight so that the hook block parts can be locked to one another.
Schaper teaches a similar lifting system and further teaches wherein the lower hook block (26) part is brought together with the upper hook block (23) after placing down and releasing of the weight so that the hook block parts (23; 26) can be locked to one another (column 4, lines 1-25, coupling members may be readily and manually moved by a rigger to the coupled or uncoupled position when the blocks are in lowered position near the floor or ground surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting system of Van Ketel to include the method of locking the upper and lower hook blocks together after placing down and releasing the weight as taught by Schaper in order to provide lack of movement of the lower block part when the two parts are locked and allow for the locking method to occur without pretension applied to prevent misalignment or improper engagement of the locks.
Regarding claim 16, Van Ketel discloses the above method of the lifting system and further teaches wherein the hoist winch (14) and the auxiliary winch (18) are controlled synchronously or synchronized for the travel of the suspension element (11; Figures 1B-1C and 1J-1L; column 1, line 31 - column 2, line 52, active system).
Regarding claim 17, Van Ketel discloses the above method of the lifting system and further wherein travel of the suspension element (11) takes place in a two-hook operation (11, 14; 15, 18) monitored by the crane control (Figures 1B-1C and 1J-1L; column 1, line 31 - column 2, line 52).
Regarding claim 18, Van Ketel discloses the above lifting system and further teaches a method for use of a lifting system, comprising fastening the pretension hook block (15) to the suspension element (11) that is lowered; fastening the weight (17) to the lower hook block part (LH); lifting the suspension element (11), whereby the lower and upper hook block parts (LH, UH) move away from one another (when auxiliary winch 18 is unspooled as the suspension element 11 is lifted by winch 14); and simultaneous unreeling the auxiliary winch (18) such that the weight (17) remains on the ground and a constant strand tension (column 1, line 58 – column 2, line 19, winch assembly 18 can be provided with simple means of paying in and winding up the unloaded cable, combined with a locking device to hold the full cable tension under load) is present in the auxiliary rope (AR), but fails to teach unlocking the upper and lower hook block parts and a constant strand tension when the weight remains on the ground.
Schaper teaches a similar lifting system and further teaches unlocking the upper and lower hook block parts (23, 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting system of Van Ketel to include unlocking the upper and lower hook block parts as taught by Schaper in order to allow independent movement of the lower block part and the load when the two parts are unlocked to compensate for relative motions and maintain an even distribution of load between the hoisting devices.
Simon teaches a similar lifting system and further teaches a constant strand tension (column 1, lines 42-65 and column 10, lines 51-64, maintains the cables and slings in continuous tension when the pulley-block comes to rest after lowering under no load) is present when the weight remains on the ground. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting system of Van Ketel to include constant strand tension when the weight remains on the ground as taught by Simon in order to prevent ramming of the pulley blocks which can result in damage of the rope and other components and prevent incorrect delivery of the rope which can result in tangling of the rope.
Regarding claim 19, Van Ketel discloses the above lifting system, but fails to teach wherein the guide mechanism includes at least one guide rail.
Schaper teaches a similar lifting system and further teaches wherein the guide mechanism (GM) includes at least one guide rail (GR; see Schaper annotated Figure 4 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting system of Van Ketel to include the guide rails as taught by Schaper in order to centralize and locate lower hook part with the upper hook part to prevent collision and damage to the rope and block components.
PNG
media_image8.png
280
422
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Schaper, Annotated Figure 4
Regarding claim 20, Van Ketel discloses a lifting system for a crane for generating a hoist rope pretension during a travel of a suspension element (11; Figure 1) of the crane, the lifting system comprising: a separable pretension hook block (15), and an auxiliary rope (AR; see Van Ketel annotated Figure 1 below) that is connected to the pretension hook block (15), the auxiliary rope (AR) is supported in a windable and unwindable manner on an auxiliary winch (18) arranged or installable on the crane (C; see Van Ketel annotated Figure 1E below), and that is guided via a deflection apparatus (DA) that is arranged or installable at a boom (B) of the crane (C), wherein the pretension hook block (15) comprises two hook block parts (UH, LH) that are connected to one another via the auxiliary rope (AR), and of which an upper hook block part (UH) has a fastening means (FM) for fastening the pretension hook block (15) to the suspension element (11) and a lower hook block part (LH) has a pick-up means (PM) for fastening a weight (17); a hoist winch (14) on which a hoist rope (HR; see Van Ketel annotated Figure 1 below) connected to the suspension element (11) is supported in a windable and unwindable manner; a crane control (Figures 1B-1C and 1J-1L; column 1, line 31 - column 2, line 52) that is configured to control the hoist winch (14) and the auxiliary winch (18) synchronized such that a weight (17) fastened to the pretension hook block (15) is held suspended at a certain height or in a certain region above the ground during a travel of the suspension element (11) by reeling up the hoist winch (14) and simultaneously unreeling the auxiliary winch (18), but fails to teach wherein the two hook block parts that are releasably lockable (unlocked) to one another; an upper hook block part has a fastening means located at an upper side of the upper hook block for fastening.
PNG
media_image6.png
583
336
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Van Ketel, Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
337
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Van Ketel, Annotated Figure 1E
Schaper teaches a similar lifting system and further teaches wherein the two hook block parts (23; 26; Figure 1) that are releasably lockable (unlocked) to one another; and wherein the pretension hook block (23, 26) comprises a guide mechanism (GM; see Schaper annotated Figure 4 below) by means of which the lower and upper hook block parts (23; 26) are configured to be brought into a defined locked position on bringing together. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting system of Van Ketel to include the two hook block parts that are releasably lockable to one another as taught by Schaper in order to allow independent movement of the lower block part and the load when the two parts are unlocked and to provide lack of movement of the lower block part when the two parts are locked; and to include the guide mechanism as taught by Schaper in order to centralize and locate lower hook part with the upper hook part to prevent collision and damage to the rope and block components.
PNG
media_image3.png
280
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Schaper, Annotated Figure 4
Simon teaches a similar lifting system and further teaches wherein an upper hook block part (13) has a fastening means (FM; see Simon annotated Figure 4 below) located at an upper side of the upper hook block (13) for fastening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting system of Van Ketel to include the fastening means as taught by Simon in order to allow ease of access for connecting or disconnecting the line between the upper hook block and suspension element and to limit rotation of the upper hook block during the lifting of a load.
PNG
media_image4.png
158
241
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Simon, Annotated Figure 4
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Ketel, in view of Schaper, in view of Simon, and in further view of Slob (US8905381B2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Van Ketel discloses the above lifting system, but fails to teach wherein the pretension hook block has at least one deflection pulley to lead the auxiliary rope laterally past the suspension element.
Slob teaches a similar lifting system and further teaches wherein the pretension hook block (14b, 16; Figure 5) has at least one deflection pulley (38a; 38d) to lead the auxiliary rope (22) laterally past the suspension element (14a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lifting system of Van Ketel to include the pretension hook block deflection pulley as taught by Slob in order to prevent the auxiliary rope from clashing or rubbing with the upper hook blocks which can result in damage to the rope.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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.
/HENRIX SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights