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 10/21/22 and 9/2/25 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.
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 “rack and pinion arrangement” Claim 15) 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.
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 2, 4-16, 18, and 19 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 the recitations of claims 2, 4, 5, 7-16, 18, and 19 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.
There is no antecedent basis for “the attachment means” s recited in Claim 2, lines 1-2.
Moreover, the recitations of “a rope, cable, belt and/or chain” as recited in Claims 5, 7, and 18 are vague and indefinite as to whether applicant is claiming “one of the rope, cable, belt and chain” or claiming “a combination of a rope, cable, belt chain.” Note that the use of “and/or” in the claims are also confusing and not clearly understood.
Further, the intensive usages of “and/or” as recited in Claims 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 18 are confusing and not clearly understood. It is pointed out that the usage of “and/or” may be acceptable depending on the context of the claims. However, another recitation of “and/or,” which is in the body of the claim or which depend on the previous claim(s), becomes vague and indefinite. The metes and bounds of the body of the claim is unknown and unclear. Applicant fails 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.
Similarly, applicant recites “optionally” as recited in Claims 11, 16, 18, and 19. Note that the usage of “optionally” may be acceptable depending on the context of the claims. However, another recitation of “optionally,” which is in the body of the claim or which depend on the previous claim(s), becomes vague and indefinite. The metes and bounds of the body of the claim is unclear. Applicant fails 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 8 recites “rotation of the first pulley wheel and/or second pulley wheel (e.g. in a first angular direction) causes movement of the first inner moving arm” whereas Claim 15 recites “the second inner moving arm is coupled to the third pulley (e.g. via a rack and pinion arrangement).”
Note that the phrase “e.g.” which is equivalent of "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 19 recites “the mounting arrangement is configured to permit rotation of the pipe handling attachment about a third axis substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and the second axis.” The claim clearly recites in lines 3-5 that “the mounting arrangement is configured to permit rotation of the pipe handling attachment about a second axis substantially perpendicular to said longitudinal axis.”
However, applicant further recites that “the mounting arrangement is configured to permit rotation of the pipe handling attachment about a third axis,” which appears to be contrary to the previously recited in lines 3-5 that “the mounting arrangement is configured to permit rotation of the pipe handling attachment about a second axis substantially perpendicular to said longitudinal axis.”
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 1-4, 10, and 16-21, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kishimoto et al. (4,563,031).
RE claim 1, Kishimoto et al. (4,563,031) discloses a pipe handling device or attachment (see Figs. 1-10) for a working machine, the pipe handling attachment configured to support a pipe (30) (see Figs. 5-10) and comprising: a mounting component (see Exhibit A) capable of being coupled the pipe handling attachment to any working machine; a beam (21) or a boom having a first support arrangement (29, 31) for supporting a first portion of a pipe (30) (see Figs. 9 & 10), and a second support arrangement (29, 30) (see Figs. 9 & 10), spaced apart from the first support arrangement, for supporting a second portion of said pipe (see Figs. 1, 9 & 10),, wherein a distance between the first support arrangement and the second support arrangement is variable (See Col. 3, lines 14-54); and an adjusting mechanism (13, 26, 32, and 33) (see Col. 4, lines 5-11) (see Fig. 9), configured to adjust the distance between the first support arrangement and the second support arrangement, and wherein the adjusting mechanism is capable of being operated automatically or manually by an operator (see Col. 4, lines 24-41) by adjusting the rods (27, 27) and the pivotal grippers (29) as shown in Fig. 9.
[AltContent: textbox (Mounting component)]Exhibit A
[AltContent: arrow][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 claim 2, Kishimoto et al. pipe handling device (4,563,031) shows that a longitudinal axis of the boom (21) is substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of a pipe supported by the pipe handling attachment.
RE claim 3, Fig. 6 of Kishimoto et al. pipe handling device (4,563,031) teaches that the first support arrangement is provided at a first end of the boom and the second support arrangement is provided at a second end of the boom, distal the first end.
RE claims 4 and 10, Kishimoto et al. pipe handling device (4,563,031) discloses that the boom is a telescopic boom comprising an outer stationary arm (21) (see Figs. 9 and 10) and a first inner moving arm (22) (see Figs. 9 and 10) configured to extend from a first end of the boom, and arranged such that the distance between the first support arrangement and the second support arrangement is varied by extending and retracting the telescopic boom wherein the boom comprises a second inner moving arm (22) (see Figs. 9 and 10) configured to extend from a second end of the boom, such that the boom is configured to extend and/or retract at both the first and second ends.
RE claim 16, Figs. 9 and 10 of Kishimoto et al. pipe handling device (4,563,031) shows the first support arrangement is provided at a free end of the first inner moving arm and the second support arrangement is provided at a free end of the second inner moving arm. Note that the rest of the claim is optional. However, the prior art does show the first support arrangement and second support arrangement each comprise a support projection (29a) (see Figs. 9 and 10) configured to engage an interior wall of a pipe supported by the pipe handling attachment, wherein at least one of the support projections is pivotally (see Figs. 9 and 10) mounted on the boom and configured.
RE claim 17, Figs. 9 and 10 of Kishimoto et al. pipe handling device (4,563,031) provides the restricted members (24, 25 34a, 34b), which could be considered as a locking arrangement, capable of preventing an adjustment of the distance between the first support arrangement and the second support arrangement as shown in Fig. 9.
RE claim 18, Figs. 6, 9, and 10 of Kishimoto et al. pipe handling device (4,563,031) show that the first support arrangement (29) and the second support arrangement (29) comprise a first support structure, and wherein the pipe handling attachment further comprises a second support structure configured to support said pipe at a third portion of said pipe. It is pointed out that the rest of the body of the claim “optionally at a fourth portion of said pipe; optionally, where in the second support structure comprises a third support arrangement for supporting the third portion of said pipe, optionally wherein the secondary support structure also comprises a fourth support arrangement for supporting the fourth portion of said pipe, wherein the third support arrangement, and optionally the fourth support arrangement, are located between the first and second support arrangements; optionally, wherein the second support structure comprises a fourth support arrangement, wherein the adjusting mechanism is a first adjusting mechanism, and wherein the pipe handling attachment comprises a second adjusting mechanism configured to adjust a distance between the third support arrangement and the fourth support arrangement, and wherein the second adjusting mechanism is configured to be operated manually; optionally, where the boom is a first boom and wherein the second support structure comprises a second boom, wherein the second boom is a telescopic boom configured such that the distance between the third support arrangement and fourth support arrangement is variable by extension and/or retraction of the second telescopic boom; optionally, where in the third support arrangement comprises a rope, cable, belt and/or chain for supporting said pipe at said third portion, optionally,” are optionally provided on the device. Fig. 6 teaches a plurality of ropes or cables.
RE claim 19, of Kishimoto et al. pipe handling device (4,563,031) teaches the pipe handling attachment defines a longitudinal axis along which the first support arrangement and the second support arrangement are provided (see Fig. 6), wherein the mounting arrangement is configured to permit rotation of the pipe handling attachment about a second axis (see Figs. 6 and 10), which is parallel to the surface of the paper, or substantially perpendicular to said longitudinal axis. It is pointed out that the rest of the body of the claim, “optionally, wherein the pipe handling attachment defines a longitudinal axis along which the first support arrangement and the second support arrangement are provided, wherein the mounting arrangement is configured to permit rotation of the pipe handling attachment about a third axis substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and the second axis,” are optionally provided on the device.
RE claim 20, Kishimoto et al. pipe handling device (4,563,031) could be used with a working machine such as winch and crane (see Col. 4, lines 24-41).
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 5-9 and 11-15, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto et al. pipe handling device (4,563,031) in view of Bjurling (4,630,855).
Kishimoto et al. pipe handling device (4,563,031), as presented above, does not specifically teach a first pulley arrangement having a pulley wheel and a rope or cable, a second pulley arrangement or a third pulley arrangement. However, Figs. 1-9 of Bjurling (4,630,855) teach a lifting device having a first pulley arrangement (10) having a pulley wheel and a rope or cable (13), a second pulley arrangement (11) or a third pulley arrangement (13) to extend and retract the telescoping beam (5) as shown in Figs. 4-9. 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 pulley wheel and a rope or cable (13), a second pulley arrangement (11) or a third pulley arrangement (13), as an alternative means to apply power mechanism, on the main beam (21) and the movable beams (21, 21) of Kishimoto et al. pipe handling device (4,563,031) as taught by Bjurling (4,630,855). to smoothly extend and retract the telescoping beam.
Claims 5-9 and 11-15, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto et al. pipe handling device (4,563,031) in view of Foster (3,837,698).
Kishimoto et al. pipe handling device (4,563,031), as presented above, does not specifically teach a first pulley arrangement having a pulley wheel and a rope or cable, a second pulley arrangement or a third pulley arrangement. However, Fig 2 of Foster (3,837,698) teaches a lifting device having a first pulley arrangement (23) having a pulley wheel and a rope or cable (see Fig. 2), a second pulley arrangement (see Fig. 2) or a third pulley arrangement (see Fig. 2) or a fourth pulley (see Fig. 2) to extend and retract the lifting cables. 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 pulley wheel and a rope or cable (13), a second pulley arrangement (11) or a third pulley arrangement (13), as an alternative means to apply power mechanism, on the main beam (21) and the movable beams (21, 21) of Kishimoto et al. pipe handling device (4,563,031) as taught by Foster (3,837,698) to smoothly extend and retract the telescoping beam.
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_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.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_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.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