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 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 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 35, 36, 38, 39, 41-44, 46, 47, 54-56, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham (US 2009/0072561) (see PTO-892) in view of Tardiff (7,222,903) (see IDS).
RE claims 35 and 55, Latham (US 2009/0072561) discloses a modular spreader structure capable of using in offshore lifts comprises providing a plurality of elongate primary tubular elements (11, 7, 9, and 11) (see Exhibit A of Fig. 1), wherein each primary tubular element comprises an axial coupler formation for end-to-end coupling with a complementary axial coupler formation (31) of another primary tubular element (41) of the structure (see Figs. 2a and 2b) (see Exhibit B) aligned on a common longitudinal axis. Note that Fig. 2(a) of Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) provides a male coupler (31) having a spigot (35) wherein the male coupler (31) is covered by a protective cover (37) and a female coupler (41) having an inner socket (45) wherein the female coupler (41) is covered by a protective cover (47) as disclosed in paragraphs [0028], [0029], and [0030] of specification.
Latham (US 2009/0072561) does not specifically show the material selection (i.e., a composite material) of the spreader structure. However, Tardiff (7,222,903) teaches a modular spreader structure being made of steel, aluminum or a composite material (see from Col. 4, line 66, to Col. 5, line 15). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a composite material on the Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) as taught by Tardiff (7,222,903) to provide a light, but endurable and reliable device to a user.
RE claim 55, Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) also teaches
inter-engaging elongate primary tubular elements end-to-end in mutual alignment on a common longitudinal axis by virtue of longitudinal overlap between axial coupler formations of the primary tubular elements as stated in paragraphs [0028], [0029], and [0030] of specification.
RE claims 36, 39, and 43, Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) shows a male coupler (31) having a spigot (35) and a female coupler (41) having an inner socket (45) wherein adjoining primary tubular elements are inter-engageable by longitudinal overlap between their axial coupler formations (RE claim 43).
RE claims 44 and 56, Figs. 2a and 2b of Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) teach at least one locking pin (51) extending through mutually aligned transverse bores in the axial coupler formations.
RE claim 42, Fig. 1 of Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) substantially shows that the axial coupler formation of each primary tubular element extends distally from a radially enlarged portion (43) of the tubular element that has locally increased wall thickness.
Exhibit A
[AltContent: textbox (An external stopper formation having a ridge (43)
(RE Claims 46 and 47))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Exhibit B
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
RE claims 38 and 41, Figs. 2a and 2b of Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) teach the axial coupler formation of at least one of the primary tubular elements comprises a complementary female formation wherein the female formation is surrounded by a distally facing flange.
RE claims 46 and 47, Figs. 1, 2a and 2b of Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) show that at least one of the primary tubular elements comprises an external stopper formation having a ridge (43) extending circumferentially around said primary tubular element.
RE claim 54, Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) shows that
the number and lengths of spreaders struts (7, 9) could be used (see paragraphs [0038] and [0039]), but does not specifically show the structural dimension (i.e., no part of the structure is of more than 12m in length when disassembled). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the length of the Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) to provide a shorter spreader to lift smaller or lighter objects to a user.
RE claim 60, Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) discloses that
the number and lengths of spreaders struts (7, 9) could be used (see paragraphs [0038] and [0039]) and disassembling the spreader structure and reassembling the spreader structure at a different installation site or in a different configuration.
Claims 37, 40, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham (US 2009/0072561) (see PTO-892) and Tardiff (7,222,903) (see IDS) and further in view of Blivet et al. (8,231,145) (see PTO-892).
RE claims 37 and 40, Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561), as presented above, show a male coupler (31) having a spigot (35) and a female coupler (41) having an inner socket (45), but does not specifically show a tapered male or female formation. However, Figs. 1, 3, and 5 of Blivet et al. (8,231,145) employ a tapered male coupler (3) and a tapered female coupler (see Fig. 5). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a tapered male coupler (3) and a tapered female coupler on the Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) as taught by Blivet et al. (8,231,145) to conveniently connect the male and female couplers together.
RE claim 40, Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) does not specifically show the material selection on the protective cover being made of steel. However, Figs. 1, 3, and 5 of Blivet et al. (8,231,145) shows a protective cover (9) to cover the tubular (see Col. 4, lines 2-18) and another protective layer (38) and washers (35) and member (37) being made of steel (see Col. 6, lines 14-24). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the material selection on the protective cover to be made of steel on the Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) as taught by Blivet et al. (8,231,145) to provide as an endurance and reliability to a user.
Claims 48-53 and 57-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham (US 2009/0072561) (see PTO-892) and Tardiff (7,222,903) (see IDS) and further in view of Huested (2,730,398) (see PTO-892).
Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561), as presented above, shows that the number and lengths of spreaders struts (7, 9) could be used (see paragraphs [0038] and [0039]), but does not specifically show at least one secondary elongate tubular element having a node connector that is configured to attach the secondary tubular element to the structure at an orientation inclined relative to the common longitudinal axis of the primary tubular elements wherein the node connector is configured to attach the secondary tubular element to an outer surface of one of the primary tubular elements wherein the node connector comprises at least one jaw with a distal end face that has curvature complementary to the outer surface of said primary tubular element. However, Fig. 2 of Huested (2,730,398) discloses a lifting system having two spreaders (1 and 2) and a connector assembly to connect other two shorter spreaders (3 and 4) (See Figs. 3 and 4), which could be considered as one secondary elongate tubular element having a node connector with at least one jaw as shown in Figs. 3, 4, and 5. Note that the bracket (5) is designed to provide a gripping curvature complementary to the outer surface (3, 4, 1, or 2) of said primary tubular element. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide at least one secondary elongate tubular element having a node connector (5) of the Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) as taught by Huested (2,730,398) so that the modified spreader structure would be able to accommodate and lift a larger object to a user.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant provides an amendment, filed July 29, 2026, and amends the depending claim 49 by changing the dependency to claim 48, instead of depending on an independent claim 35, filed July 29, 2026. The amended claim 49 overcomes the previously Claim Rejection under 35 USC 112, second paragraph (see a non-final office action, mailed April 29, 2026. Therefore, with respect to Claims 49-52, the Claim Rejection under 35 USC 112, second paragraph have been withdrawn. Note that claims 51 and 52 depend on claim 50 which in turn depends on claim 48.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments (pages 9-13) filed July 29, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “The combination of Latham and Tardiff does not render claim 35 obvious. Latham discloses a modular spreader bar assembly made of steel that attaches together via respective male and female spigot and socket formations at each end of the respective modules thereof (see paras. [0028] - [0029]), which are held together by locking pins (see para. [0030]). Latham therefore does not disclose a spreader bar made primarily of a composite material, as claimed, and the Examiner acknowledges that Latham does not specifically show the material selection of the spreader structure. See Office Action, p. 4. However, the Office concludes that, since Tardiff discloses a composite spreader bar, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the teachings of Latham and Tardiff and reach the claimed invention. Id.
The spreader bar of Tardiff is telescopic and, while it could be made of a composite material, is preferably made from a metal, particularly aluminum. See col. 4, I. 66 - col. 5, I. 3. The design of a lightweight spreader bar is an objective of Tardiff, as stated in col. 2, II. 1-4.
Latham, however, is set against the background of avoiding the use of lighter materials in spreader bars. The last sentence of paragraph [0006] of Latham states that "[l]ighter materials have been proposed to alleviate the weight of such a proposal but such materials add expense, as does the machining of the threads on each component". The disclosure of Latham therefore offers an alternative to the use of lighter materials in solving the problem addressed, namely the faster and easier assembly of spreader bars, especially in view of the identified disadvantages associated with lighter materials. Taking the disclosure of Latham as a whole, therefore, there would be no reason - and in fact an explicit disincentive - for a person having ordinary skill in the art to attempt to implement a lighter material into the spreader bar of Latham.
Even if a person having ordinary skill in the art were to combine Latham with Tardiff, the explicit teaching of Tardiff is that the use of metals is preferred over composites. As discussed above, an objective of Tardiff is the provision of a lightweight spreader bar. As such, it follows that all of the materials disclosed in Tardiff are considered to be satisfactorily light to avoid the problems associated with heavier steel bars. The skilled person, on reading Tardiff, would not find it obvious to eschew an embodiment that is identified as being more preferred and forego it for one that is less preferred. A combination of Latham with Tardiff would therefore result in the use of aluminum, not composite material.” (see pages 9-11).
Claims 35 and 55
The Material Selection of Latham’s Spreader (US 2009/0072561)
Latham’s Spreader discloses that “the end members (3 and 5) and intermediate spreader strut(s) (7 and 9) are formed from a steel material.”
[0014] Preferably the end members and intermediate spreader strut(s) are formed from a steel material. Most preferably the steel material comprises a density of 7.80 g/cm.sup.3.
[0015] Preferably the ratio of the lifting capacity of the assembled spreader rig to the weight of the assembled spreader is in the range 200:1 to 1000:1.
Applicant’s Misconstrued Argument
Applicant reasons that “Latham, however, is set against the background of avoiding the use of lighter materials in spreader bars. The last sentence of paragraph [0006] of Latham states that "[l]ighter materials have been proposed to alleviate the weight of such a proposal but such materials add expense, as does the machining of the threads on each component". The disclosure of Latham therefore offers an alternative to the use of lighter materials in solving the problem addressed, namely the faster and easier assembly of spreader bars, especially in view of the identified disadvantages associated with lighter materials. Taking the disclosure of Latham as a whole, therefore, there would be no reason - and in fact an explicit disincentive - for a person having ordinary skill in the art to attempt to implement a lighter material into the spreader bar of Latham.” (see Page 10).
The Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s argument.
Latham’s Spreader (US 2009/0072561) addresses the two problems of the proposed shortcomings of a spreader as described in paragraphs [0005] and [0006] of specification:
The fixed link between the lifting slings, the load slings, and the spreader strut, creating undesired bending forces through the strut (See paragraph [0005]) whereas Latham’s Spreader (US 2009/0072561) solves the problem by providing “the use of the pivotable connecting plate 23 removes any bending load that might otherwise be generated between the end members 3, 5 (See paragraph [0036]).
The Thread Connection between Spreader Components Carries Significant Compression Load
Latham’s Spreader (US 2009/0072561) addresses the second problem that “the thread connection between spreader components” carries “significant compression load” provided with “high weight of components preventing manual handling.” (see paragraph [0006]), meaning the heavy weight such as solid metal or steel would cause the problem of “manual handling.”
Latham (US 2009/0072561) further suggests by providing lighter materials which would alleviate the heaving weight problem, but “the lighter materials of such a proposal such materials add expense, as does the machining of the threads on each component.” (see paragraph [0006]).
Proposing lighter materials would encounter two problems:
“Higher Cost for lighter materials” and
Expense for machining of the threads on each component” (See paragraph [0006]).
[0006] It has been proposed to provide a threaded connection between spreader components but when the components are assembled together the threads carry a significant portion of the axial compression load that is generated by the slings and which acts between the ends of the spreader assembly, To ensure such a structure is strong enough to cope with axial compression loads carried in this way, the components and the threaded connection have to be relatively substantially which again leads to a relatively high weight of component, preventing manual handling. Lighter materials have been proposed to alleviate the weight of such a proposal but such materials add expense, as does the machining of the threads on each component.
It is pointed out that the main concerns of Latham (US 2009/0072561) is on the expense and machining of the threads on each component, but not providing lighter and better materials. Latham’s spreader (US 2009/0072561) is not against lighter materials, as the applicant’s argues.
Also note that Latham (US 2009/0072561) brilliantly solves the expense for machining of the threads on each component by eliminating the threaded connection between the component and by providing a male connector 31 and a female connector 41 instead (see Exhibit B).
[0027] The end of the strut portion 11 of the end member 3 distal from the fingers 15 is provided with connection means comprising a male connector 31. The end of the strut portion 11 of the other end member 5 distal from the fingers 15 is provided with a female connector 41.
[0028] The male connector 31 comprises an enlarged diameter load carrying annular portion 33, the diameter of which is greater than the diameter of the strut portion 11 of the end member 3. The male connector 31 further comprises a protruding spigot 35 of lesser diameter than that of the strut portion 11. There is therefore provided an annular load absorbing face 37 which is defined by the ring of material of the annular portion 33 around the root of the spigot 35.
The Material Selection of Tardiff’s Spreader (7,222,903)
Tardiff’s Spreader (7,222,903) teach that “a modular spreader structure being made of steel, aluminum or a composite material (see from Col. 4, line 66, to Col. 5, line 15).”
Latham (US 2009/0072561) in view of Tardiff (7,222,903)
Latham (US 2009/0072561) discloses a modular spreader structure capable of using in offshore lifts comprises providing a plurality of elongate primary tubular elements (11, 7, 9, and 11) (see Exhibit A of Fig. 1), wherein each primary tubular element comprises an axial coupler formation for end-to-end coupling with a complementary axial coupler formation (31) of another primary tubular element (41) of the structure (see Figs. 2a and 2b) (see Exhibit B) aligned on a common longitudinal axis. Note that Fig. 2(a) of Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) provides a male coupler (31) having a spigot (35) wherein the male coupler (31) is covered by a protective cover (37) and a female coupler (41) having an inner socket (45) wherein the female coupler (41) is covered by a protective cover (47) as disclosed in paragraphs [0028], [0029], and [0030] of specification.
Latham (US 2009/0072561) does not specifically show the material selection (i.e., a composite material) of the spreader structure.
However, Tardiff (7,222,903) teaches a modular spreader structure being made of steel, aluminum or a composite material (see from Col. 4, line 66, to Col. 5, line 15).
Obviousness
Applicant also reasons that “Even if a person having ordinary skill in the art were to combine Latham with Tardiff, the explicit teaching of Tardiff is that the use of metals is preferred over composites. As discussed above, an objective of Tardiff is the provision of a lightweight spreader bar. As such, it follows that all of the materials disclosed in Tardiff are considered to be satisfactorily light to avoid the problems associated with heavier steel bars. The skilled person, on reading Tardiff, would not find it obvious to eschew an embodiment that is identified as being more preferred and forego it for one that is less preferred. A combination of Latham with Tardiff would therefore result in the use of aluminum, not composite material.” (see pages 9-11)” (pages 10-11).
The Provision of Composite Material (of Tardiff (7,222,903) on Latham (US
2009/0072561)
As the Examiner previously presented above, the main concerns of Latham (US 2009/0072561) is on the expense and machining of the threads on each component, but not providing lighter and better materials. Latham’s spreader (US 2009/0072561) is not against lighter materials, as the applicant’s argues.
Latham (US 2009/0072561) brilliantly solves the expense for machining of the threads on each component by eliminating the threaded connection between the component and by providing a male connector 31 and a female connector 41 instead.
It is pointed out that to those one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention would provide a composite material on the Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) as taught by Tardiff (7,222,903) to provide a light, but endurable and reliable device to a user.
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Exhibit B
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A Protective Cover or Liner or a Stiffer Material
Applicant continue to argue that “Notwithstanding the above, even if a person having ordinary skill in the art were to somehow combine Latham with Tardiff in the way suggested by the Examiner, neither document teaches the use of a protective cover or liner in an axial coupler formation. So, even if the skilled person went against the teachings of Latham and Tardiff and combined them, the result would still fall short of the invention as claimed. The invention implements a protective, reinforcing cover and liner that makes selective use of metals to enable the lightweight benefits of composites without their attendant disadvantages, such as sensitivity to shear stresses and lesser stiffness. See paras. [0013] and [0020], for example, of the pre- grant publication corresponding to the present application (US 2023/0002200). In addition to protecting the axial coupler formations, the liner and cover enable a more reliable transfer of forces as they ensure dimensional accuracy under stresses of use.
There is no teaching, nor even any hint, towards this feature in either Latham or Tardiff. For example, in Latham, which relates to a similarly-structured spreader bar, there is no suggestion that the ends of the spreader bar members could be protected using a different material or that the ends of the spreader bar members are susceptible to damage. There is also no discussion, for example, of the steel flanges being beneficial because they are more resistant to damage when compared to other materials, and particularly more lightweight materials. Replacing or covering the steel flanges of Latham with a different material would have a negligible effect on weight and no apparent functional benefits, only drawbacks.
The only reference to the features of the respective protective covers in the Office Action are the load bearing faces (37, 47) on the male and female spigot formations of Latham, which are compared to the protective covers of Claim 35. This is despite those faces of Latham not belonging to a protective cover but simply to a part of the bar with an increased diameter (see, e.g., Figs. 1 and 2 showing the load bearing faces 37, 47), and Latham not disclosing any sort of cover on the spigot formations. Furthermore, there is no specific reference made to the material of the faces, or the spigot formations more generally, let alone the properties of the faces or spigot formations relative to the rest of the spreader bar. Since Tardiff discloses a telescopic spreader bar, it doesn't disclose any male or female spigot coupler formations like the invention of Latham, and so would not be of any help in determining a specific material choice for the coupler formations of Latham, or a cover thereof. That is, Tardiff does not cure the deficiencies in Latham with respect to at least the claimed "protective cover or liner of a stiffer material than the composite material." (See the last paragraph of page 11 to the second last paragraph of page 13).
The Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s reasoning.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the axial coupler formations are covered by a protective cover or liner of a stiffer material than the composite material.”
It is pointed out that Latham’s Spreader is being made of “a steel material” as presented above and stated in paragraph [0014].
Latham’s Spreader’s a male coupler (31) with a spigot (35) which appears to be made of a steel material” which is “a stiff material,” as presented above and stated in paragraph [0014].
PNG
media_image3.png
389
661
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case,
Tardiff (7,222,903) teaches a modular spreader structure being made of steel, aluminum or a composite material (see from Col. 4, line 66, to Col. 5, line 15).
It is pointed out that to those one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention would provide a protective cover or a stiff material such as a steel or an aluminum material on the connecting components of Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) as taught by Tardiff (7,222,903) to provide the respective reliable connections preventing from collapsing to a user. Note that the provision of a stainless-steel coating or an aluminum coating also have been widely used in the heavy rain and sea environment to prevent the equipment or the spreaders from corrosions.
Therefore, claims 35-60 remains rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAUL T CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-69226922. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-4:30 PM.
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, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL T CHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights