Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/27/222 and 10/6/22 were filed and the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. However, the provided US reference, 845724 (Whidden), was not found. The reference appears to be incorrect. Therefore, the reference has been crossed out and not considered. But the Examiner will reconsider the reference if applicant provides a correct reference.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “means of a spring” (Claim 11), “a latching mechanism” (Claim 16), and “the hole is oval” (Claim 23) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 10, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that claim 6, line 2, the number “2” (line 2) after “the lever portion” should be deleted and the word “an” before “angle section” should be changed to – said – or – the –. Note that claim 1 had already recites “an angle section in line 7.
Claim 10, line 10, the word “a” before “hook shank” should be changed to – said --. Note that lines 4 and 5 had already recites “a hook shank.”
Claim 11, the word “a” before “protrusion” (line 4) should be changed to – said --. Note that claim 10, line 9, had already recites “a protrusion.”
Applicant is required to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
It is pointed out that some of the recitations as recited in claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 21, and 23 are confusing and not clearly understood. Applicant is required to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a plate-shaped section in which a hole (102) is formed,” claim 5 also recites “the lever portion is plate-shaped,” Claim 7 recites “a plate-shaped lever portion,” claim 21 recites “at least one hole (102) within a plate-shaped section,” and claim 22 recites “a plate-shaped section.”
The recitation of “a plate-shaped” is not clearly understood as to the exact definition of “a plate-shape” since it appears that there is not define structure of the terminology.
There is no antecedent basis for “the lever portion” as recited in Claim 1, lines 7-8 and Claim 5, line 2, Claim 6, line 2, Claim 9, line 2, and Claim 13, line 2. Note that claim 1, line 3, recites “a substantially straight lever section.” Moreover, there is no antecedent basis for “the coupling means” in claim 3, line 3. Note that Claim 3, line 2 recites “a coupling opening.”
Claims 2, 10, and 21, which depend on an independent claim 1, recites “the transport hook comprises a lever section with a coupling element with which the transport hook can be connected to a lifting device, and comprises a hook shank.” It appears that the recited structural elements are a duplicate of the structural elements as recited an independent claim 1.
It is pointed out that claim 1 recites “the transport hook comprises a substantially straight lever section with a coupling element with which the transport hook can be connected to a lifting device, and comprises a substantially approximately straight hook shank,” in lines 3-6.
The recitations of the depending claims 2, 10, and 21 are confusing and not clearly understood as to whether the claims recite “additional structural elements or secondary elements of “a lever section,” :a coupling element,” and “a hook shank,” in addition to the originally recited structures of “a lever section,” :a coupling element,” and “a hook shank,” in claim 1. Clarification must be made.
The exact meaning of the recitation of “the locking part is loaded by means of a spring so that it can be moved against the resilience in such a way that it does not form a protrusion on the hook shank and the latter can be pulled out of the hole,” (Claim 11) is confusing and not clearly understood as to why it “does not form a protrusion on the hook shank.” The recitation of “the latter” is also confusing as to how it can be pulled out of the hole.
Claim 10 recites “a hook shank (3) engaged through the hole (102) can no longer escape from the hole (102).”
The recitation is confusing and not clearly understood to the meaning of “through the hole (102) can no longer escape from the hole (102).” It appears that “the hole” is meant to be “the hole of the load” which will clarify the confusion with respect to “the safety device.”
Claims 21-23 recite a method of lifting and moving a structure, but the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the methods or steps of
lifting and moving a structure. The claims recite an apparatus, instead of a method of lifting and moving a structure. Therefore, it is not clearly understood the applicant is claiming an apparatus or a method of lifting and moving a structure.
Claim 23 recites “the hole is oval and, in particular, approximately circular.” The recitation is confusing and not clearly understood as to how “the oval hole” is “approximately circular.” The usages of “and/or” three times, as recited in lines 4, 6, and 8 are vague and indefinite. Note that the usage of “and/or” may be acceptable, but the usages of “and/or” three times are confusing and indefinite. The usage of “in particular, approximately circular” must be clarified for the confusion to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 8, 12, 14-20 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCraw (5,997,063).
RE claims 1, 2, 6, and 20, McCraw (5,997,063) discloses a lifting and transporting hook (see Figs. 1-5) capable of lifting and moving a load comprising a plate having a section in which a hole is formed or other loads, wherein the transporting hook comprises a substantially straight lever section (23, 25) with a coupling element (38) with which the transport hook capable of being connected to a lifting device, and comprises a substantially approximately straight hook shank (33) (see Fig.1), wherein the hook shank is connected with an angle section (30) to the lever section (23, 25) in such a way that an angle (see Fig. 1) is formed between a line extending from the coupling element to a vertex located on the inner surface of the angle section and a line extending along the hook shank (33), which is smaller than 90 degree (see Fig. 1), the hook shank (33) and the angle section (30. 34) forming a continuous strand of approximately uniform thickness so that, for lifting and moving the load, the hook shank, and the angle section capable of engaging in a hole of the load and the hook shank or the angle section capable of engaging behind an edge region of the hole.
RE claims 2 and 6, Figs. 1 and 5 of McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) teach at least the hook shank (22) is a round structure comprising a substantially round cross-section (see Fig. 5).
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE claim 3, Fig. 1 of McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) shows the coupling element is formed as a coupling opening (38) on the lever portion being arranged on the free end of the lever portion facing away from the hook shank (33).
RE claim 4, Fig. 1 of McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) discloses that the hook is being formed in one piece which is capable being made from various methods such as cast, pressed from a powder, machined from a solid material or forged from a semi-finished product. Note that Claim 4 is an apparatus, not a method of being made.
RE claim 5, Fig. 1 of McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) (See Exhibit A) shows that the lever portion is being a plate (See Fig. 4) a length that is many times greater than a width or thickness of the lever portion.
RE claims 8 and 9, Fig. 1 of McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) (See Exhibit A) shows that a width of the lever portion (26) at a free end facing away from the hook shank (33) is larger than a width of the lever portion adjacent to the hook shank wherein the lever portion (23, 25, 29) is many times longer than the engagement section of the hook shank (33).
RE claim 20, McCraw (5,997,063) discloses a lifting and transporting hook (see Figs. 1-5) capable of lifting and moving a load comprising a plate having a section in which a hole is formed or other loads, wherein the transporting hook comprises a substantially straight lever section (23, 25) with a coupling element (38) with which the transport hook capable of being connected to a lifting device, and comprises a substantially approximately straight hook shank (33) (see Fig.1), wherein the hook shank is connected with an angle section (30) to the lever section (23, 25) in such a way that an angle (see Fig. 1) is formed between a line extending from the coupling element to a vertex located on the inner surface of the angle section and a line extending along the hook shank (33), which is smaller than 90 degree (see Fig. 1), the hook shank (33) and the angle section (30. 34) forming a continuous strand of approximately uniform thickness so that, for lifting and moving the load, the hook shank, and the angle section capable of engaging in a hole of the load and the hook shank or the angle section capable of engaging behind an edge region of the hole, and further recites the single hook is connected to a chain (see Col. 2, lines 43-54 and Col. 3, lines 54-61) being positioned at an end facing away from the transport hook so that they can be connected to a gripper of the lifting device.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, and 20-22, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Japanese Publication (JP 141979) (see IDS).
RE claims 1, 2, 6, and 20, the Japanese Publication (JP 141979) discloses a lifting and transporting hook (see Figs. 1-5) for lifting and moving a load comprising a plate having a section in which a hole (See Figs. 2, 3 and 5) is formed or other loads, wherein the transporting hook comprises a substantially straight lever section (3) with a coupling element (2) with which the transport hook capable of being connected to a lifting device (B), and comprises a substantially approximately straight hook shank (see Fig.1), wherein the hook shank is connected with an angle section to the lever section in such a way that an angle (see Fig. 1b) is formed between a line extending from the coupling element to a vertex located on the inner surface of the angle section and a line extending along the hook shank (33), which is smaller than 90 degree (see Fig. 1b), the hook shank and the angle section forming a continuous strand of approximately uniform thickness so that, for lifting and moving the load, the hook shank, and the angle section capable of engaging in a hole of the load and the hook shank or the angle section capable of engaging behind an edge region of the hole.
RE claim 3, Fig. 1b of the Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979) shows the coupling element is formed as a coupling opening on the lever portion being arranged on the free end of the lever portion facing away from the hook shank.
RE claim 4, Fig. 1b and c of the Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979) discloses that the hook is being formed in one piece which is capable being made from various methods such as cast, pressed from a powder, machined from a solid material or forged from a semi-finished product. Note that Claim 4 is an apparatus, not a method of being made.
RE claim 5, Fig. 1b of the Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979) shows that the lever portion is being a plate having a length that is many times greater than a width or thickness of the lever portion.
RE claims 8 and 9, Fig. 1b of the Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979) shows that a width of the lever portion at a free end facing away from the hook shank is larger than a width of the lever portion adjacent to the hook shank wherein the lever portion is many times longer than the engagement section of the hook shank (33).
RE claims 10, 12, and 13, Figs. 2-5 of the Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979) show a locking part (4) movably arranged on the transport hook in such a manner that it can form a protrusion (see Fig. 5) in the hook shank (-3) so that a hook shank engaged through the hole (D) can no longer escape from the hole (D) (see Fig. 2), a locking rod (5) which is slidably mounted on the transport hook in various ways slidably in the longitudinal direction wherein the lever portion comprises a retaining bracket which is designed to retain the safety device.
RE claims 20-22, Figs. 2-5 of the Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979) also disclose a device and a method (see para [002]) having the single hook or more is connected to a rope (B) being positioned at an end facing away from the transport hook so that they can be connected to a gripper of the lifting device and the hook shank or the angle section are inserted into the circular hole (D) and engage behind an edge region of the hole (D) to lift the structure as shown in Figs. 2 and 5.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 17-20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEON (US 2010/0207410).
RE claims 1, 2, 6, and 20, LEON (US 2010/0207410) discloses a lifting and transporting hook (see Figs. 1-5F) capable of lifting and moving a load comprising a plate having a section in which a hole is formed or other loads, wherein the transporting hook comprises a substantially straight lever section (12) with a coupling element (18) with which the transport hook capable of being connected to a lifting device, and comprises a substantially approximately straight hook shank (see Fig.1), wherein the hook shank is connected with an angle section (see Fig. 1) to the lever section (12) in such a way that an angle (see Fig. 1) is formed between a line extending from the coupling element to a vertex located on the inner surface of the angle section and a line extending along the hook shank, which is smaller than 90 degree (see Fig. 1), the hook shank and the angle section forming a continuous strand of approximately uniform thickness so that, for lifting and moving the load, the hook shank, and the angle section capable of engaging in a hole of the load and the hook shank or the angle section capable of engaging behind an edge region of the hole.
RE claims 2 and 6, Figs. 1 and 4 of LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410) teach at least the hook shank is a round structure comprising a substantially round cross-section (see para [0016]).
RE claim 3, Fig. 1 of LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410) shows the coupling element is formed as a coupling opening (18) on the lever portion being arranged on the free end of the lever portion facing away from the hook shank.
RE claim 4, Fig. 1 of LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410) discloses that the hook is being formed in one piece which is capable being made from various methods such as cast, pressed from a powder, machined from a solid material or forged from a semi-finished product. Note that Claim 4 is an apparatus, not a method of being made.
RE claim 5, Fig. 1 of LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410) shows that the lever portion is being a substantially plate (See Fig. 4) where a length that is many times greater than a width or thickness of the lever portion.
RE claims 8 and 9, Fig. 1 of LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410) shows that a width of the lever portion (12) at a free end facing away from the hook shank is larger than a width of the lever portion adjacent to the hook shank wherein the lever portion is many times longer than the engagement section of the hook shank.
RE claims 17-19, Figs. 2 and 3 of LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410) disclose a locking element (14) that is capable of securing the transport hook in a hole of the load wherein the locking element is connected to the hook shank in a swivel joint (see Figs. 2 and 3) and is preferably elastically pretensioned (44, 52) into a locking position in which it protrudes from the hook shank (-), or into a position in which it rests against the hook shank wherein the locking element is capable of engaging against a surface of the hook shank.
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 5 and 7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCraw’s hook (5,997,063).
If McCraw’s hook (5,997,063), as presented above, does not specifically teach the specific structural dimension of the device. 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 specific dimension (such as a length, diameter, thickness) of McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) to provide a useful device to a user.
Claims 20-23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) in view of Knox (4,248,469).
RE claims 20 and 21, McCraw’s hook (5,997,063), as presented above, does not specifically teach at least two or more transport hooks being inserted through the preferably circular hole, an end of the lever portion remote from the hook shank with a lifting device with a tensile force, with a force vector loaded in a direction away from the hole. However, Figs. 1-4 of Knox (4,248,469) teach two or more transport hooks being inserted through the preferably circular hole or an oval shape (25”), an end of the lever portion remote from the hook shank with a lifting device. 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 more than one hook or more hooks of McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) as taught by Knox (4,248,469) to secure and firmly lift the hole or holes of a plate.
RE claims 22 and 23, McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) does not specifically teach the specific structural dimension of the device. 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 specific dimension (such as a length, diameter, thickness) of McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) to provide a useful device to a user.
Claims 20-23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) in view of Knox (4,248,469).
RE claims 20 and 21, McCraw’s hook (5,997,063), as presented above, does not specifically teach at least two or more transport hooks being inserted through the preferably circular hole, an end of the lever portion remote from the hook shank with a lifting device with a tensile force, with a force vector loaded in a direction away from the hole. However, Figs. 1-4 of Knox (4,248,469) teach two or more transport hooks being inserted through the preferably circular hole or an oval shape (25”), an end of the lever portion remote from the hook shank with a lifting device. 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 more than one hook or more hooks of McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) as taught by Knox (4,248,469) to secure and firmly lift the hole or holes of a plate.
RE claims 22 and 23, McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) does not specifically teach the specific structural dimension of the device. 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 specific dimension (such as a length, diameter, thickness) of McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) to provide a useful device to a user.
Claims 20-23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) in view of the Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979).
RE claims 20 and 21, McCraw’s hook (5,997,063), as presented above, does not specifically teach at least one or two or more transport hooks being inserted through the preferably circular hole, an end of the lever portion remote from the hook shank with a lifting device with a tensile force, with a force vector loaded in a direction away from the hole. However, Figs. 1-5 of the Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979) teach two or more transport hooks being inserted through the preferably circular hole (D) or an oval shape, an end of the lever portion remote from the hook shank with a lifting device. 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 more than one hook or more hooks of McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) as taught by the Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979) to secure and firmly lift the hole or holes of a plate.
RE claims 22 and 23, McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) does not specifically teach the specific structural dimension of the device. 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 specific dimension (such as a length, diameter, thickness) of McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) to provide a useful device to a user.
Claims 7 and 23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979).
The Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979), as presented above, does not specifically teach the specific structural dimension of the device. 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 specific dimension (such as a length, diameter, thickness) of the Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979) to provide a useful device to a user.
Claim 11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979) in view of McCullough (4,148,514).
The Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979), as presented above, does not specifically teach a spring on the safety device. However, McCullough (4,148,514) teaches a hook being provided with a spring (91) provided on the rod for biasing. 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 biased spring on the Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979) as taught by McCullough (4,148,514) to push against the movable block or slide (4) to firmly secure the hole (D).
Claims 5 and 7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410).
If LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410), as presented above, does not specifically teach the specific structural dimension of the device. 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 specific dimension (such as a length, diameter, thickness) of LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410) to provide a useful device to a user.
Claims 20-23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410) in view of Knox (4,248,469).
RE claims 20 and 21, LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410), as presented above, does not specifically teach at least two or more transport hooks being inserted through the preferably circular hole, an end of the lever portion remote from the hook shank with a lifting device with a tensile force, with a force vector loaded in a direction away from the hole. However, Figs. 1-4 of Knox (4,248,469) teach two or more transport hooks being inserted through the preferably circular hole or an oval shape (25”), an end of the lever portion remote from the hook shank with a lifting device. 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 more than one hook or more hooks of LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410) as taught by Knox (4,248,469) to secure and firmly lift the hole or holes of a plate.
RE claims 22 and 23, LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410) does not specifically teach the specific structural dimension of the device. 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 specific dimension (such as a length, diameter, thickness) of LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410) to provide a useful device to a user.
Claims 20-23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410) in view of the Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979).
RE claims 20 and 21, LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410), as presented above, does not specifically teach at least one or two or more transport hooks being inserted through the preferably circular hole, an end of the lever portion remote from the hook shank with a lifting device with a tensile force, with a force vector loaded in a direction away from the hole. However, Figs. 1-5 of the Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979) teach two or more transport hooks being inserted through the preferably circular hole (D) or an oval shape, an end of the lever portion remote from the hook shank with a lifting device. 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 more than one hook or more hooks of McCraw’s hook (5,997,063) as taught by the Japanese Publication hook (JP 141979) to secure and firmly lift the hole or holes of a plate.
RE claims 22 and 23, LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410) does not specifically teach the specific structural dimension of the device. 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 specific dimension (such as a length, diameter, thickness) of LEON’s hook (US 2010/0207410) to provide a useful device to a user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL T CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6922. 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, Gene Crawford can be reached on (571) 272-6911. 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 3651
Specification
The title of the invention (“Articulated Clutch”) is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
There is no antecedent basis for “the second gripping portion” as recited in claims 12, 13, and 14. Note that the claims 12 and 13 depend on claim 10, but claim 10 recites only “a first ripping portion.”
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MacKay Sim (8,172,289) (See IDS).
MacKay Sim (8,172,289) discloses a lifting clutch device for lifting a concrete component, the clutch (see Exhibit A) comprising: a toroidal connector (115) (see Fig. 4A); a latch (115) movable relative to the toroidal connector from a disengaged condition to an engaged condition (See Figs. 4A-4C); and a coupler (101) configured to couple the toroidal connector to a lifting apparatus, wherein the coupler is articulated.
RE claim 7, Fig, 4B of MacKay Sim (8,172,289) teaches the latch (115) is a circular latch (117) passing through an inner circular passage (see Fig. 4C) of the toroidal connector.
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 2, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacKay Sim (8,172,289) (see IDS) in view of Manney et al. (3,373,560).
MacKay Sim (8,172,289), as presented above, shows a lifting clutch device for lifting a concrete component, the clutch (see Exhibit A) comprising: a toroidal connector (115) (see Fig. 4A); a latch (115) movable relative to the toroidal connector from a disengaged condition to an engaged condition (See Figs. 4A-4C); and a coupler (101) configured to couple the toroidal connector to a lifting apparatus, wherein the coupler is articulated,
but does not specifically teach the coupler includes a first part and a second part pivotal relative to the first part about a pin, the first part including a first circular arc and the second part including a second circular arc, and wherein the pin is located such that a longitudinal axis of the pin is perpendicular to a line connecting a center of the first arc to a center of the second arc.
However, Figs. 1-8 of Manney et al. (3,373,560) teaches the coupler configured to couple the toroidal connector (141) to a lifting apparatus, wherein the coupler includes a first part (10) and a second part (12) pivotal relative to the first part about a pin (26), the first part including a first circular arc and the second part (see Exhibit B) including a second circular arc, and wherein the pin is located such that a longitudinal axis of the pin is perpendicular to a line connecting a center of the first arc to a center of the second arc.
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
or replace the single lifting shackle (102) of MacKay Sim (8,172,289) with the pivotal coupler (10 and 12) of Manney et al. (3,373,560) to provide flexibility and pivotal movement to a user.
Exhibit B
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
RE claims 5 and 6, MacKay Sim (8,172,289) shows that the second loop (10) is capable of directing fitment of a lifting chain while also enabling direct fitment of a lifting hook and the coupler includes an elongated pin (26) (see Figs, 1 and 2) extending about a longitudinal axis of which the second part is pivotal relative to the first part.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacKay Sim (8,172,289) (see IDS) and Manney et al. (3,373,560) and further in view of Lawley (7,562,919).
The modified MacKay Sim (8,172,289), as presented above, shows that the first loop and the second loop appears to be the same size,
but does not specifically show that
the first loop is a different size to the second loop or the first loop is smaller than the second loop.
However, Fig. 2 of Lawley (7,562,919) teaches a plurality of loops (30) having different sizes for lifting.
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
different size on the first and second loop on the MacKay Sim (8,172,289) as taught by
Lawley (7,562,919) to provide flexibility and more room to fit the application to a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL T CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6922. 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, Gene Crawford can be reached on (571) 272-6911. 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 3651