DETAILED ACTION
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 –
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 25, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Harken et al (5,156,378).
Regarding claim 1, Harken et al (‘378) discloses a hubless sheave system (abstract) comprising: a mounting bracket 42 (fig3); a line support wheel (fig2) configured to support a line, the line support wheel comprising: an outer race 10 (col.2 line16) having a groove 14 (col.2 lines18-19) and an outer circumferential surface of the outer race 10 (fig2); and a hubless inner race 12 (col.2 line17) attached to the mounting bracket 42 (fig3), the hubless inner race 12 comprising: a first inner race 18 (col.2 lines20-21) disposed on a first side (fig2) of the outer race 10, and a second inner race 20 (col.2 lines20-21) being removably coupled (indirectly via an element 22 and threaded fasteners 21, col.2 lines18-23) to the first inner race 18.
Regarding claim 2, Harken et al discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a center of gravity of the hubless sheave system is nearer an outer circumference of the line support wheel than a center of the liner support wheel (figs2-3).
Regarding claim 25, Harken et al discloses the system of claim 23, wherein the first inner race 18 and the second inner race 20 are configured to secure the outer race 10 at least partially between the first inner race 18 and the second inner race 20 such that the outer race 10 can rotate freely around the first inner race 18 and the second inner race 20 but cannot slide off of the first inner race 18 or the second inner race 20 (fig2).
Regarding claim 32, Harken et al discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of bearings 28,30 (col.2 lines29-30) disposed between the hubless inner race 12 and the outer race 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 10-12, 14-15, 20, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harken et al (5,156,378) in view of Lindsey (4,301,994).
Regarding claim 3, Harken et al discloses the system of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of a support arm. Lindsey (‘994) teaches a use of a support arm 29 (col.2 lines65-66) coupled to a mounting bracket 18 (col.2 line45, fig1) and configured to attach a system to a support (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harken et al to use a support arm, as taught by Lindsey, to hang the system for different work location. However, Lindsey does not explicitly teach that the support arm is detachably coupled. It has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to it would be obvious to make the element removable if it were considered desirable for any reason for the element to be removable (MPEP2144.04 V. C.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support arm of Lindsey to be removable for the purpose of making the support arm replaceable.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Harken et al and Lindsey teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the support arm (Lindsey) is arcuate (fig1, Lindsey) such that a load applied to the line support wheel is centered below a mounting point of the support arm.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Harken et al and Lindsey teaches the system 3, wherein the support arm (Lindsey) further comprises one or more accessory bosses 33 (fig1, Lindsey).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Harken et al and Lindsey teaches the system 11, wherein the one or more accessory bosses (Lindsey) are configured to remove and support a handle (col.4 line2).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Harken et al and Lindsey teaches the system 3. Lindsey further teaches wherein the support arm further comprises a side frame 40 (col.3 line18) rotatable coupled to the support arm (via an element 41, col.3 lines18-19), the side frame 40 being configured to rotate between an open position (when the side frame 40 is unlocked) and a closed position (when the side frame 40 is locked and firmly held by springs 42 and cam followers 43), wherein, when in the open position, the side frame 40 is configured to permit the line to be placed on the line support wheel, and wherein, when in the closed position, the side frame 40 is configured to prevent the line from falling off the line support wheel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harken et al to use a side frame, as further taught by Lindsey, for the purpose of assuring that the line comes to rest on the groove of the line support wheel (col.3 lines16-19).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Harken et al and Lindsey teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the side frame 40 (Lindsey) is spring loaded (col.4 lines18-22, Lindsey) to cause the side frame to move from the open position to the closed position.
Regarding claim 20, Harken et al discloses the system of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of a line guide. Lindsey teaches a use of a line guide 52 (col.3 line39) attached to a mounting bracket 18 (col.2 line45, fig1), the line guide 52 being configured to guide a line toward a line support wheel (col.3 lines55-59, fig1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harken et al to use a line guide, as taught by Lindsey, for the purpose of guiding a line into the line support wheel when using the system.
Regarding claim 35, Harken et al discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising: a bearing surface (defined by bearings 28,30, col.2 lines29-30) disposed between the hubless inner race 12 and the outer race 10 to enable the outer race 10 to rotate freely about the hubless inner race 12, wherein the hubless inner race 12 is detachably (via threaded fasteners 21, col.2 lines18-23) coupled to the mounting bracket at an upper portion of the hubless inner race 12. However, Harken et al does not explicitly disclose a use of a support arm. Lindsey (‘994) teaches a use of a support arm 29 (col.2 lines65-66) coupled to a mounting bracket 18 (col.2 line45, fig1) and configured to attach a system to a support (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harken et al to use a support arm, as taught by Lindsey, to hang the system for different work location. However, Lindsey does not explicitly teach that the support arm is detachably coupled. It has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to it would be obvious to make the element removable if it were considered desirable for any reason for the element to be removable (MPEP2144.04 V. C.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support arm of Lindsey to be removable for the purpose of making the support arm replaceable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 69 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The subject matter of claim 69 not found was a use of a retainer configured to align the plurality of bearings between the outer race and the hubless inner race in a spaced apart relationship; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 69 and any of its intervening claims of the instant invention.
Claims 43, 51, 53-54, 57, 59-60 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The subject matter of the independent claim(s) could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record. The subject matter of independent claim 43 not found was a use of the outer race defining a first bearing surface along an inner circumference of the outer race and a plurality of bearings disposed between the first bearing surface defined by the outer race and the second bearing surface defined by the hubless inner race; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 43 of the instant invention.
None of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention.
The closest prior art, Harken et al (‘378) teaches a similar hubless sheave comprising: a mounting bracket 42, a linear support wheel (fig2) configured to support a line, the line support wheel comprising: an outer race 10 (col.2 line16) having a groove 14 (col.2 lines18-19) and an outer circumferential surface of the outer race 10 (fig2); and a hubless inner race 12 (col.2 line17) attached to the mounting bracket 42 (fig3), the hubless inner race 12 comprising: a first inner race 18 (col.2 lines20-21) disposed on a first side (fig2) of the outer race 10, and a second inner race 20 (col.2 lines20-21) being removably coupled (indirectly via an element 22 and threaded fasteners 21, col.2 lines18-23) to the first inner race 18, a plurality of bearings 28,30 (col.2 lines29-30) disposed between the outer race and the hubless inner race 12, the plurality of bearings 28,30 configured to enable the outer race 10 to rotate freely about the hubless inner race 12 (fig2). Although the prior art of record teaches a similar hubless sheave, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Harken et al to use the outer race defining a first bearing surface along an inner circumference of the outer race and a plurality of bearings disposed between the first bearing surface defined by the outer race and the second bearing surface defined by the hubless inner race; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 43 of the instant invention. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the independent claim 43.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Harken et al fails to show, disclose, or suggest the second inner race being removably coupled to the first inner race because the first and second inner races are not coupled to each other but are instead coupled to the central annual member. However, the Office respectfully disagrees. The first and second inner races of Harken et al are indirectly removably coupled to each other through the central annual member by threaded fasteners. Claim does not require direct attachment between the first and second inner races. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723