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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, it appears there is a typographical error and “having at least one motor-driven roller feeds a cable” should read “having at least one motor-driven roller which feeds a cable”. 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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites the limitations “a controller” in lines 8 and 13, it is unclear if applicant intends to claim a first and second controller, or just one controller.
Claims 13, 15-19 and 22 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 12.
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) 1-3, 10, 12, 16, 18, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al., US20190023520, in view of Morita et al., US5732835.
Regarding independent claim 1, Robertson et al. discloses a speed adjusting cable assembly (328, Fig. 4) configured for use with a cable feeder ("deploying the cable 506 from the cable spool 504" Paragraph [0062], line 7) having at least one motor-driven roller (504, is driven by 540, Fig. 5a) which feeds a cable through the cable feeder ("deploying the cable 506 from the cable spool 504" Paragraph [0062], line 7), the speed adjusting cable assembly comprising: a frame (frame 500, Fig. 5a is equivalent to frame 302, in Figs. 3a, 3b); a shaft extending from and pivotally connected to, the frame (portion of 328 which extends through frame 500 and actuator 330 allows for pivotable connection, Fig. 4); a boom arm (328, Fig. 4, equivalently shown in Fig. 5a) connected to the shaft ("pivoting bar 328 extends laterally across the support frame 302" Paragraph [0049], lines 4-5, thus it is connected to the shaft portion of 328 which extends through frame 550), the boom arm (328, Fig. 4) having a cable guide (326, Fig. 4) on the boom arm (328, Fig. 4, equivalently shown in Fig. 5a) which is configured to allow at least one cable to pass therethrough ("cable can pass between the roller bars 326 as it is deployed" Paragraph [0049], lines 2-3); a sensor which measures a rotational position ("potentiometer dial" Paragraph [0064], line 6, when boom arm is raised due to tension the potentiometer dial is turned such that it measures a rotational position); a controller (Paragraph [0064], lines 5-8) configured to automatically receive the measured rotational position of the boom arm from the sensor, compare the measured rotational position to a defined optimal angle of the boom arm, and increase a speed of the at least one motor-driven feeder roller to increase slack in the cable when the boom arm is vertically above the optimal angle thereby causing the boom arm to move toward the optimal angle, and decrease the speed of the at least one motor-driven feeder roller to decrease slack in the cable when the boom arm is vertically below the optimal angle thereby causing the boom arm to move toward the optimal angle ("variable speed DC controller, whereby as a potentiometer dial is increased, the speed of the rotating spool 504, which is connected to the motor 540, also increases" Paragraph [0064], lines 5-8; “these devices incorporate braking means that is actuated by cable tension” Abstract, lines 3-4).
Robertson et al. does not disclose the sensor is configured to measure a rotational position of the boom arm relative to a horizontal plane, the controller is configured to receive the measured rotational position of the boom arm relative to a horizontal plane and compare the measured rotational position to a defined optimal angle of the boom arm relative to the horizontal plane.
Morita et al. teaches a boom arm pivotally connected to a frame by a shaft, and a sensor (10, Fig. 1) configured to measure a rotational position of the boom arm relative to a horizontal plane (α, Fig. 1; Column 3, lines 12-14) and the controller is configured to receive the measured rotational position of the boom arm relative to a horizontal plane and compare the measured rotational position to a defined optimal angle of the boom arm relative to the horizontal plane (Column 7, lines 15-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shaft of Robertson et al. to add the sensor and controller of Morita et al. which measures the angle with respect to a horizontal plane and sends the information to the controller in order to accurately control the movement of the cable. One would have been motivated to make this modification to maximize safety (Column 7, lines 34-35), and “the boom…angle and the rope length can be controlled concurrently” (Column 7, lines 29-45; Morita et al.). Further, it would have been obvious to make such a modification since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Regarding claim 2, Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the cable guide includes a housing (326, 328, Fig. 4) which is configured to sit on a top surface of the cable ("the tension in the cable increases, lifting up on the pivoting bar" Paragraph [0066], lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 3, Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 2, and further comprising a roller (326, Fig. 4) rotatably attached to the housing ("roller bars 326 are mounted on a pivoting bar 328" Paragraph [0049], lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 10, Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the sensor is a potentiometer ("potentiometer dial" Paragraph [0064], line 6).
Regarding independent claim 12, Robertson et al. teaches an assembly (500, Fig. 5a) comprising: a cable feeder ("deploying the cable 506 from the cable spool 504" Paragraph [0062], line 7) comprising a frame (500, Fig. 5a), at least one roller mounted on the frame (504, mounted on frame 500, Fig. 5a) and a motor (540, Fig. 5a) operatively coupled to the at least one roller to rotate the at least one roller so that cable is paid out ("a motor operationally connected to the cable spool 504...deploying the cable 506 from the cable spool 504" Paragraph [0062], lines 1-7); and a speed adjusting cable assembly (328, 326, Fig. 3a, equivalent structure in Fig. 5a) comprising: a frame (500, Fig. 5a), a shaft extending from, and pivotally connected to the frame (shaft end of 328 which is pivotally extends through frame 550, Fig. 4), a boom arm (328, Fig. 4, equivalently shown in Fig. 5a) pivotally connected to the shaft ("pivoting bar 328 extends laterally across the support frame 302" Paragraph [0049], lines 4-5), the boom arm having a housing (328, 326, Fig. 4) which is configured to sit on a top surface of the cable ("the tension in the cable increases, lifting up on the pivoting bar" Paragraph [0066], lines 6-7), and a roller (326, Fig. 4) attached to the housing (328, Fig. 4), a sensor ("potentiometer dial" Paragraph [0064], line 6) a controller (Paragraph [0064], lines 5-8) configured to automatically receive the measured rotational position of the boom arm from the sensor, compare the measured rotational position to a defined optimal angle of the boom arm, and increase a speed of the at least one motor-driven feeder roller to increase slack in the cable when the boom arm is vertically above the optimal angle thereby causing the boom arm to move toward the optimal angle, and decrease the speed of the at least one motor-driven feeder roller to decrease slack in the cable when the boom arm is vertically below the optimal angle thereby causing the boom arm to move toward the optimal angle ("variable speed DC controller, whereby as a potentiometer dial is increased, the speed of the rotating spool 504, which is connected to the motor 540, also increases" Paragraph [0064], lines 5-8; “these devices incorporate braking means that is actuated by cable tension” Abstract, lines 3-4).
Robertson et al. does not disclose the sensor is configured to measure a rotational position of the boom arm relative to a horizontal plane, the controller is configured to receive the measured rotational position of the boom arm relative to a horizontal plane and compare the measured rotational position to a defined optimal angle of the boom arm relative to the horizontal plane.
Morita et al. teaches a boom arm pivotally connected to a frame by a shaft, and a sensor (10, Fig. 1) configured to measure a rotational position of the boom arm relative to a horizontal plane (α, Fig. 1; Column 3, lines 12-14) and the controller is configured to receive the measured rotational position of the boom arm relative to a horizontal plane and compare the measured rotational position to a defined optimal angle of the boom arm relative to the horizontal plane (Column 7, lines 15-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shaft of Robertson et al. to add the sensor and controller of Morita et al. which measures the angle with respect to a horizontal plane and sends the information to the controller in order to accurately control the movement of the cable. One would have been motivated to make this modification to maximize safety (Column 7, lines 34-35), and “the boom…angle and the rope length can be controlled concurrently” (Column 7, lines 29-45; Morita et al.). Further, it would have been obvious to make such a modification since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Regarding claim 16, Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 12, and wherein the sensor is a potentiometer ("potentiometer dial" Paragraph [0064], line 6).
Regarding claim 18, Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 12, and wherein the frame of the cable feeder (302, Fig. 3a, and equivalent structure of Fig. 5a) and the frame of the speed adjusting cable assembly (302, Fig. 3a, and equivalent structure of Fig. 5a) are integrally formed (frame of cable feeder and speed adjusting cable assembly are integral, Fig. 3a, 5a).
Regarding claim 21, Robertson et al. in view of Morita et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the controller is configured to control the speed at which the at least one motor-driven roller rotates to feed the cable through the cable feeder ("variable speed DC controller, whereby as a potentiometer dial is increased, the speed of the rotating spool 504, which is connected to the motor 540, also increases" Paragraph [0064], lines 5-8) , and wherein the controller is configured to stop the at least one motor-driven roller (“the device further comprise a motor operationally connected to the cable spool for selectively rotating the cable spool when the motor is actuated” Paragraph [0021], lines 2-4).
Robertson et al. does not disclose when the boom arm is between an operating zone of -45 degrees from the horizontal plane and 90 degrees from the horizontal plane, and to stop the at least one motor-driven roller when not within the operating zone.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit the operating zone of the boom arm and to stop the roller when not within the operating zone, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One would have been motivated to limit the operable range of the boom arm to limit tangling of the cable and ensure accurate cable feeding.
Regarding claim 22, Robertson et al. in view of Morita et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the controller is configured to control the speed at which the at least one roller of the cable feeder rotates to feed the cable through the cable feeder ("variable speed DC controller, whereby as a potentiometer dial is increased, the speed of the rotating spool 504, which is connected to the motor 540, also increases" Paragraph [0064], lines 5-8) , and wherein the controller is configured to stop the at least one roller of the cable feeder (“the device further comprise a motor operationally connected to the cable spool for selectively rotating the cable spool when the motor is actuated” Paragraph [0021], lines 2-4).
Robertson et al. does not disclose when the boom arm is between an operating zone of -45 degrees from the horizontal plane and 90 degrees from the horizontal plane, and to stop the at least one roller of the cable feeder when not within the operating zone.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit the operating zone of the boom arm and to stop the roller when not within the operating zone, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One would have been motivated to limit the operable range of the boom arm to limit tangling of the cable and ensure accurate cable feeding.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. US20190023520A1, in view of Morita et al., US5732835, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Dir et al., US20150364903A1.
Regarding claim 4, Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 2, and a speed adjusting cable assembly and a housing.
Robertson et al. does not disclose wherein the housing has a pair of angled lead-in walls through which the cable passes.
Dir et al. teaches a cable feeder having a housing wherein the housing (110, Fig. 6) has a pair of angled lead-in walls (175, 175', Fig. 6) through which the cable passes (cable passes over rollers 214, 216, between walls 175, 175', Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the speed adjusting cable assembly of Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., to add the angled lead-in walls as taught by Dir et al. to avoid sharp edges on which the cable could be damaged or hung up as it passes through the guide. One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce friction on the cable as it passes through the guide.
Claim(s) 5, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. US20190023520A1, in view of Morita et al., US5732835, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above and further in view of Plummer US6073916.
Regarding claim 5, Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 2, and a speed adjusting cable assembly and a housing.
Robertson et al., does not disclose the housing has a plurality of bars forming channels through which the cable can pass.
Plummer teaches a cable feeder having a housing wherein the housing (86, Fig. 1) has a plurality of bars (88, Fig. 1) forming channels (space between 88, Fig. 1)through which the cable can pass (cables pass between bars 88, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the speed adjusting cable assembly of Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., to add a plurality of bars to the cable guide housing in order to keep cables separated as they pass through the guide. One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce tangling and interference between cables during operation.
Regarding claim 17, Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 12, and a speed adjusting cable assembly.
Robertson et al., does not disclose the cable feeder comprises a pair of motor-driven rollers mounted on the frame of the cable feeder, wherein the cable passes between the pair of motor- driven rollers of the cable feeder, wherein the controller controls rotation of both motor-driven rollers.
Plummer teaches the cable feeder (20, Fig. 1) comprises a pair of motor-driven rollers (rollers 36, 38, driven by motors 64, 66, Fig. 11) mounted on the frame of the cable feeder (44, Fig. 1), wherein the cable passes between the motor- driven rollers of the cable feeder (cables 26, 24, 22 pass between the pair of motor driven rollers 36, 38, Fig. 12), wherein the controller (76, Fig. 11) controls rotation of both motor-driven rollers ("each motor 64, 66 is a variable speed motor and is connected to a controller 76" Column 5, lines 18-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the speed adjusting cable assembly of Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., to add a cable feeder as taught by Plummer in order to ensure optimized feeding of the cables. One would have been motivated to make this modification to precisely control the speed at which the cables are fed.
Claim(s) 6-8, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. US20190023520A1, in view of Morita et al., US5732835, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above and further in view of Ripplinger, US20140270673A1.
Regarding claim 6, Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, wherein the boom arm (328, Fig. 4) includes the cable guide (326, Fig. 4) having an upper housing portion (see upper housing portion as shown in Annotated Figure 4 of Robertson et al. below) and a lower housing portion (see lower housing portion as shown in Annotated Figure 4 of Robertson et al. below) attached to the upper housing portion (upper and lower housing portions are attached, integral, see Annotated Figure 4 of Robertson et al. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Robertson et al.
Robertson et al. does not disclose wherein the lower housing portion can be at least partially disengaged from the upper housing portion, and further comprising a releasable lock attached to the cable guide and configured to be unlocked to allow the lower housing portion to rotate relative to the upper housing portion.
Ripplinger teaches a cable guide (cable roller 32, Fig. 1) wherein the lower housing portion can be at least partially disengaged from the upper housing portion (lower housing portion 90 is partially disengaged in Figure 4 from upper housing 98, Fig. 4), and further comprising a releasable lock (pins 114, 116, Fig 3, Fig. 4) attached to the cable guide and configured to be unlocked to allow the lower housing portion to rotate relative to the upper housing portion (pins 114, 116, attached to 32, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, and when unlocked allow lower housing portion 90 to rotate relative to the upper housing portion 34, 98, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cable guide of Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., to have the lower housing portion partially detach from the upper housing portion as taught by Ripplinger in order to make adjustment and feeding of the cable easier. One would have been motivated to make this modification to more easily access the cable.
Regarding claim 7, Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al. and Ripplinger, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 6, and an upper and lower housing portion.
Robertson et al. does not disclose the upper housing portion and the lower housing portion are pivotally attached to each other by a hinge.
Ripplinger teaches a cable guide wherein the upper housing portion (34, Fig. 4) and the lower housing portion (90, Fig. 4) are pivotally attached to each other by a hinge (96, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cable guide of Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., to make the upper and lower housing portion pivotally attached to each other by a hinge as taught by Ripplinger to “allow for the easy removal of the cable from the cable roller” (Abstract, lines 7-8; Ripplinger). One would have been motivated to make this modification to more easily access the cable.
Regarding claim 8, Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al. and Ripplinger, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 6, and further comprising an upper roller (upper roller 326, Fig. 4) rotatably attached ("roller bars 326 are mounted on a pivoting bar 328" Paragraph [0049], lines 3-4) to the upper housing portion (see upper housing portion as shown in Annotated Figure 4 of Robertson et al. above), and a lower roller (lower roller 326, Fig. 4) rotatably attached ("roller bars 326 are mounted on a pivoting bar 328" Paragraph [0049], lines 3-4) to the lower housing portion (see lower housing portion as shown in Annotated Figure 4 of Robertson et al. above), wherein the cable passes between the rollers ("the cable can pass between the roller bars 326" Paragraph [0049], lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 13, Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 12, wherein the boom arm (328, Fig. 4) includes a cable guide (326, Fig. 4) having an upper housing portion (see upper housing portion as shown in Annotated Figure 4 of Robertson et al. above) and a lower housing portion (see lower housing portion as shown in Annotated Figure 4 of Robertson et al. above) attached to the upper housing portion (upper and lower housing portions are attached, integral, see Annotated Figure 4 of Robertson et al. above).
Robertson et al. does not disclose wherein the lower housing portion can be at least partially disengaged from the upper housing portion, and further comprising a releasable lock attached to the cable guide and configured to be unlocked to allow the lower housing portion to rotate relative to the upper housing portion.
Ripplinger teaches a cable guide (cable roller 32, Fig. 1) wherein the lower housing portion can be at least partially disengaged from the upper housing portion (lower housing portion 90 is partially disengaged in Figure 4 from upper housing 98, Fig. 4), and further comprising a releasable lock (pins 114, 116, Fig 3, Fig. 4) attached to the cable guide and configured to be unlocked to allow the lower housing portion to rotate relative to the upper housing portion (pins 114, 116, attached to 32, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, and when unlocked allow lower housing portion 90 to rotate relative to the upper housing portion 34, 98, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cable guide of Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., to have the lower housing portion partially detach from the upper housing portion as taught by Ripplinger in order to make adjustment and feeding of the cable easier. One would have been motivated to make this modification to more easily access the cable.
Regarding claim 15, Robertson et al., in view of Ripplinger, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 13, and wherein the roller (326, Fig. 4) attached to the housing (roller 326 is attached to upper housing portion as shown in Annotated Figure 4 of Robertson et al. above) is an upper roller (top roller 326, Fig. 4) rotatably attached ("roller bars 326 are mounted on a pivoting bar 328" Paragraph [0049], lines 3-4) to the upper housing portion (see upper housing portion as shown in Annotated Figure 4 of Robertson et al. above), and further comprising a lower roller (bottom roller 326, Fig. 4) rotatably attached ("roller bars 326 are mounted on a pivoting bar 328" Paragraph [0049], lines 3-4) to the lower housing portion (see lower housing portion as shown in Annotated Figure 4 of Robertson et al. above), wherein the cable passes between the upper and lower rollers ("the cable can pass between the roller bars 326" Paragraph [0049], lines 2-3).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al., US20190023520A1, in view of Morita et al., US5732835 and Ripplinger US20140270673A1 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Plummer US6073916.
Regarding claim 9, Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al. and Ripplinger, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 8, and a cable guide assembly having a housing.
Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al. and Ripplinger, does not teach wherein the housing has a plurality of bars forming channels through which the cable can pass.
Plummer teaches a cable feeder having a housing wherein the housing (86, Fig. 1) has a plurality of bars (88, Fig. 1) forming channels (space between 88, Fig. 1) through which the cable can pass (cables pass between bars 88, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the speed adjusting cable assembly of Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al. and Ripplinger, to add a plurality of bars to the cable guide housing in order to keep cables separated as they pass through the guide. One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce tangling and interference between cables during operation.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. US20190023520 in view of Morita et al., US5732835 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Russell et al. US20200087102A1.
Regarding claim 11, Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and a cable guide having a boom arm (328, Fig. 4).
Robertson et al. does not disclose the speed adjusting cable assembly further comprising a storage cradle on the frame, wherein the boom arm is configured to be moved into the storage cradle for storage.
Russell et al. teaches a cable guide having a boom arm and a storage cradle (310, Fig. 3) on the frame (131, Fig. 3), wherein the boom arm (300, 400, 500, Fig. 3) is configured to be moved into the storage cradle for storage (Figure 7 shows boom arm in storage position in cradle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cable guide having a boom arm of Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., to add a storage cradle as taught by Russell et al to save space and move the speed adjusting cable assembly out of the way when not in use. One would have been motivated to make this modification to more easily store the assembly, and save space.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. US20190023520, in view of Morita et al., US5732835 as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Jubek et al., US20180013270A1.
Regarding claim 19, Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 12, and a speed adjusting cable assembly having a cable feeder.
Robertson et al. does not disclose further comprising a cable puller.
Jubek et al. teaches a cable feeder (32, Fig. 1a) further comprising a cable puller (22, Fig. 1a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the speed adjusting cable assembly having a cable feeder of Robertson et al., in view of Morita et al., to add a cable puller as taught by Jubek et al. to aid in maneuvering the cable through a conduit. One would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure the cable is efficiently and successfully guided through a conduit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on page 7 of Remarks, filed 3/10/2026 that Robertson does not disclose the claimed sensor (see Response to Arguments in Non-Final Office Action mailed 9/11/2025), or automatic closed-loop angle-setpoint slack controller, it is noted that the potentiometer dial of Robertson functions as a sensor in a closed-loop angle-setpoint slack controller, as tension on the cable is increased, the boom arm is raised moving the potentiometer dial and as Robertson discloses the "variable speed DC controller, whereby as a potentiometer dial is increased, the speed of the rotating spool 504, which is connected to the motor 540, also increases" (Paragraph [0064], lines 5-8). Further, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192. Thus, to make the manual feedback loop and device of Robertson in combination with Morita automatic would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8 that Morita is not concerned with rope slack, it is noted that the Examiner relies on Robertson for this feature , because Robertson discloses tensioning of the cable ("variable speed DC controller, whereby as a potentiometer dial is increased, the speed of the rotating spool 504, which is connected to the motor 540, also increases" Paragraph [0064], lines 5-8; “these devices incorporate braking means that is actuated by cable tension” Abstract, lines 3-4). Examiner relies on Morita to teach a boom arm pivotally connected to a frame by a shaft, and a sensor (10, Fig. 1) configured to measure a rotational position of the boom arm relative to a horizontal plane (α, Fig. 1; Column 3, lines 12-14) and the controller is configured to receive the measured rotational position of the boom arm relative to a horizontal plane and compare the measured rotational position to a defined optimal angle of the boom arm relative to the horizontal plane (Column 7, lines 15-31). Therefore, applicant’s argument that Morita is not concerned with rope slack is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm 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.
/K.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654