DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 11-12, 14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0252616 (hereinafter “Bryson”) in view of US 4,605,107 (hereinafter “Hallidy”), and US 2021/0237306 (hereinafter “Eschelbacher”); and in further view of US 2016/0046468 A1 (hereinafter “Heravi”).
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 18 Bryson discloses an apparatus and associated system process comprising:
A hoist system process comprising:
providing a hook (paragraph 31);
providing a cable (34) connected to the hook (paragraph 31);
providing a motor (22) configured to move the hook (paragraph 31) and the cable (34);
an overload protection device slip detection system (see paragraph 18) configured to limit loads (paragraph 17) imparted on one or more of the hook (paragraph 31), the cable (34), and the motor (22) with an overload protection device (36); and
at least one sensor (see paragraph 18; i.e. to know the rotation, two sensors of some kind would be needed) detecting activation of the overload protection device (36) with an overload protection device slip detection system (42, etc.);
an implementation (“another implementation” per claim 1) of the sensor (see paragraph 18) sensing rotational movement within a reduction gearing (24; i.e. 36 is part of the drive train 24, which could also be referred to as a “reduction gearing”).
Bryson teaches counting “gear rotation on the input end and the output end of overload clutch 36” (paragraph 18) in response to a load being subjected forces, accelerations, and/or movements, but it is not clear if Bryson teaches the exact sensor/comparator combination as set forth in claim 1. Hallidy teaches a winch (14) with an overload protection device (10) and a slip detection system (16/18/20/22/24) thereof. Hallidy further teaches wherein the slip detection system (16/18/20/22/24) further comprises:
at least one sensor (16/18) configured to sense rotational movement of:
the motor (i.e. at 16), and
the OLPD (10) (i.e. at 60 with 18, see fig. 3);
a comparator (24) configured to detect slippage by comparing input from at least two implementations of the at least one sensor (16/18) in response to a load being subjected forces, accelerations, and/or movements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the sensor/comparator system of Hallidy to the overload protection system of Bryson with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better know the status of respective components of the overload protection system.
Bryson fails to teach measuring or comparing accelerations based on the rotational movement. Eschelbacher teaches a winch (100) with a motor (104) and sensors (102/110) on input/output ends of the winch to sense rotary motion at the respective input/output of the winch. Eschelbacher further teaches measuring and comparing of acceleration as an obvious variation of measuring/comparing rotary position or speed (see paragraph 16: “rotational velocities (and/or rotational accelerations and/or rotational positions) would be compared directly by the comparison algorithm”); and an implementation of the sensor (110) being configured to sense rotational movement of the cable storage drum (108); and another implementation of the sensor (102) configured to sense rotational movement of the reduction gearing (105; i.e. the input of the reduction gearing 105 is the motor 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the apparatus of Bryson with an acceleration detection/comparison and drum sensor, as taught by Eschelbacher, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to apprise the control system of more system parameters than Bryson alone.
It is noted that this combination would result in:
wherein the at least one sensor (Bryson as modified per Hallidy 16/18 and Eschelbacher 102/110) is implemented as an OLPD activation sensor (per Bryson) to detect activation of the overload protection device (Bryson 36);
wherein the implementation of the at least one sensor (Bryson as modified per Hallidy 16/18 and Eschelbacher 102/110) is configured to detect actual speeds of the cable storage drum (per Eschelbacher 110); wherein the another implementation of the at least one sensor (Bryson as modified per Hallidy 16/18 and Eschelbacher 102/110) is configured to detect actual speeds of the reduction gearing (per Eschelbacher 102)
wherein the comparator (Hallidy 24) is configured to compare actual detected speeds from the implementation of the at least one sensor and the another implementation of the at least one sensor (Bryson as modified per Hallidy 16/18 and Eschelbacher 102/110); and
wherein the comparator (Hallidy 24) is configured to detect slippage when the actual detected speeds from the sensors exceed a predetermined threshold (see Hallidy column 3 lines 38-54).
Bryson fails to teach providing a pilot and/or crew with a signal indicating OLPD activation as per claim 1. Heravi teaches a winch for hauling on a line, the winch comprising a clutch in the transmission thereof (see par. 20). Heravi further teaches wherein when an overload protection device (OLPD) slip detection system determines that the overload protection device (OLPD) has been activated (par. 39), the overload protection device (OLPD) slip detection system generates a signal indicating OLPD activation and provides slip detection information to a pilot and/or a crew via a display (at 704; see par. 39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the visual display of Heravi to the display of Bryson with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to inform the user whether or not the OLPD is activated or not (as per Heravi par. 39).
Regarding claim 2 modified Bryson teaches the above apparatus and process, and further teaches:
wherein the comparator (Hallidy 24) is configured to compare accelerations (per Eschelbacher paragraph 16) from the implementation of the at least one sensor and the another implementation of the at least one sensor (Bryson as modified per Hallidy 16/18 and Eschelbacher 102/110);
wherein the comparator (Hallidy 24) is configured to detect slippage when the accelerations detected (per Eschelbacher paragraph 16) from the implementation of the at least one sensor and the another implementation of the at least one sensor (Bryson as modified per Hallidy 16/18 and Eschelbacher 102/110) exceed a predetermined threshold (per Hallidy 24) in response to a load being subjected forces, accelerations, and/or movements (per Bryson and Hallidy); and
Regarding claim 6 Bryson discloses the above apparatus and process, and further discloses:
wherein when the overload protection device slip detection system (Bryson 42, etc.) determines that the overload protection device (Bryson 36) has been activated, the overload protection device slip detection system (Bryson 42, etc.) signals at least a control system (i.e. of Bryson, as modified above).
Regarding claims 4, 7, and 19 modified Bryson teaches the above apparatus and process, and further teaches wherein the comparator (Hallidy 24) is configured with thresholds (i.e. “selected degree” of slip for a “predetermined time”); and
configuring the at least one sensor (Bryson as modified per Hallidy 16/18 and Eschelbacher 102/110) to detect a movement (i.e. relative motion of clutch discs in Bryson; see Bryson paragraph 17), wherein the at least one sensor (Bryson as modified per Hallidy 16/18 and Eschelbacher 102/110) comprises at least a rotary encoder (Hallidy 16/18 are considered rotary encoders).
Regarding claim 11 modified Bryson teaches the above apparatus, and further teaches wherein the overload protection device (Bryson 36) is configured to implement OLPD activation to start slipping above a certain torsional range (i.e. at the minimum clutch slip load, see paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 12 modified Bryson teaches the above apparatus, and further teaches wherein the overload protection device (Bryson 36) is configured to reengage after OLPD activation to stop slipping below a certain torsional range (i.e. the minimum clutch slip load, see Bryson paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 14 modified Bryson teaches the above apparatus, and further teaches wherein the overload protection device (Bryson 36) is configured with one or more mechanical clutches (i.e. friction disc clutch which transmits force within the drive train, see Bryson paragraph 17).
Claims 8-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryson in view of Hallidy, Eschelbacher, Heravi, and US 2005/0065692 (hereinafter “Freitag”).
Regarding claims 8-9 modified Bryson discloses the above apparatus (e.g. see claim 1, which contains similar recitations to claim 8), and further teaches at least one sensor (Bryson as modified per Hallidy 16/18 and Eschelbacher 102/110) and a comparator (Hallidy 24) in conjunction with the OLPD slip detection system; wherein when the overload protection device slip detection system (Bryson 42, etc.) determines that the overload protection device (Bryson 36) has been activated, the overload protection device slip detection system (Bryson 42, etc.) signals at least a crew via a display (see Bryson paragraph 33).
Bryson fails to teach the details of the OLPD slip detection system as set forth in claim 8. Freitag teaches a winch designed to impart force to a cable, the winch having an OLPD (14) and OLPD slip detection system (19; i.e. see beginning of paragraph 28) with at least on sensor (i.e. speed sensor 18). Freitag further teaches:
wherein the overload protection device (OLPD) slip detection system (19) is configured to receive operator control inputs comprising an upward command and/or a downward command (paragraph 26, i.e. at least via the position of operator switch);
wherein the at least one sensor (18) is configured to detect a movement of the cable storage drum (13; i.e. detecting the speed of the transmission, 7, indirectly detects movement of the drum); and
wherein the overload protection device (OLPD) slip detection system (19) is configured to compare the operator control inputs (“operating condition” as selected by operating switch; see paragraph 26) to movement of the cable storage drum (13) (see abstract and paragraph 28) detected (at least indirectly) by the sensor (18);
wherein the system is configured to detect slippage when the operator control inputs to the movement [of] the cable storage drum exceed a predetermined threshold (see paragraph 28; i.e. if the operator’s control causes a slip, then the system will detect said slip).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the user input comparison of Freitag to the OLPD slip detection system of Bryson in order to keep the load from operating at an unintended speed.
Regarding claim 10 modified Bryson teaches the above apparatus. Bryson further teaches: configuring the at least one sensor (42 is a “slip sensor”) to detect a movement (i.e. relative motion of clutch discs; see paragraph 17), wherein the at least one sensor (42) comprises at least one a rotary encoder (end of paragraph 18; i.e. “gear rotation” sensor for input and output of clutch 36).
wherein the comparator (Hallidy 24) is configured with thresholds (i.e. “selected degree” of slip for a “predetermined time”);
Regarding claim 13 modified Bryson teaches the above apparatus. Bryson further teaches: wherein the overload protection device (36) is configured to implement OLPD activation to start slipping above a certain torsional range (i.e. at the minimum clutch slip load, see paragraph 19); and wherein the overload protection device (36) is configured to reengage after OLPD activation to stop slipping below a certain torsional range (i.e. the minimum clutch slip load, see paragraph 19).
Claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryson in view of Hallidy, Eschelbacher, Heravi, and US 20170362067 (hereinafter “Hiekata”).
Regarding claim 15 modified Bryson teaches the above apparatus, and mentions that other clutches could be used (see Bryson, end of paragraph 17). Bryson fails to teach electrically activated clutches as per claim 15.
Hiekata teaches a hoist system comprising a hook, cable, and winch (see figure 1), and an overload protection device (OLPD). Hiekata further teaches wherein the OLPD (58) is configured with an electrically activated clutch (see paragraphs 68 and 72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the clutch of Bryson an electrically actuated clutch with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to more precisely know when the clutch was actuated/unactuated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the newly cited reference “Heravi” teaches the limitations added to the claims via amendment, and is newly combined, as explained above.
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 Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time.
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 P 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.
/N.L.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights