DETAILED ACTION Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s amendment filed 8/5/25.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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 5, 8 – 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (2020/0173875, hereinafter Campbell – See IDS dated 7/12/23) in view of Fukumori et al. (2019/0119080, hereinafter Fukumori – See IDS dated 7/12/23).
Regarding claim 1, Campbell discloses an apparatus comprising measuring a load lifted by a lifting machine and at least one strain gauge 290 affixed to end supports (See Fig. 44), wherein at least one strain gauge measures a strain applied to the end supports by the load on the rope (See Pg. 18, Paras. 0515 and 0520). Campbell fails to disclose a winch with a rope wound onto a drum, the drum being rotatable to wind and unwind the rope affixed to the load to lift and lower the load. However, Fukumori discloses an apparatus comprising a sensor affixed to a drum or end support 17B, a winch 17 having a rope 19 wound onto the drum or end support 17B, the drum being rotatable to wind and unwind the rope affixed to the load to lift and lower the load (See Pg. 1, Para. 0008, Pg. 3, Para. 0040 and Pg. 6, Para. 0069). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Campbell according to the teachings of Fukumori for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device allows an operator to recognize errors in work information and the number of turns set in a safety apparatus (See Fukumori, Pg. 1, Para. 0005).
Regarding claim 2, in Campbell, a computing circuit 102 receives an electric signal from the at least one strain gauge that is representative of the strain on the end supports and converts the signal to an output indicating the weight of the load (See Fig. 9, See Pg. 6, Paras. 0287 – 0289).
Regarding claim 3, in Campbell, the at least one strain gauge comprises a plurality of strain gauges, each providing an electric signal to the computing circuit that is representative of the strain on the end supports (See Pg. 9, Para. 0327).
Regarding claim 4, in Campbell, the computing circuit converts the electric signal from each of the plurality of strain gauges to the output indicating the weight of the load (See Fig. 9, See Pg. 6, Paras. 0287 – 0289).
Regarding claim 5, in Campbell, the plurality of strain gauges is affixed to the end supports such that strain is measured along a plurality of directions (See Figs. 9 and 58, Pg. 6, Paras. 0287 – 0289 and 0544).
Regarding claim 8, Campbell fails to disclose a display indicating the weight of the load. However, in Fukumori, a display indicates the weight of the load (See Pg. 4, Para. 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Campbell according to the teachings of Fukumori for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device allows an operator to recognize errors in work information and the number of turns set in a safety apparatus (See Fukumori, Pg. 1, Para. 0005).
Regarding claim 9, Campbell fails to disclose that a boom extends away from the winch, wherein the rope extends from the drum along the boom and the load is lifted below the extended boom by the rope. However, in Fukumori, a boom 8 extends away from the winch, wherein the rope extends from the drum along the boom and the load is lifted below the extended boom by the rope (See Pg. 2, Para. 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Campbell according to the teachings of Fukumori for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device allows an operator to recognize errors in work information and the number of turns set in a safety apparatus (See Fukumori, Pg. 1, Para. 0005).
Regarding claim 10, Campbell fails to disclose that the end supports comprise a pair of end supports. However, in Fukumori, the end supports comprise a pair of end supports (See Pg. 3, Para. 0040). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Campbell according to the teachings of Fukumori for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device allows an operator to recognize errors in work information and the number of turns set in a safety apparatus (See Fukumori, Pg. 1, Para. 0005).
Regarding claim 11, in Campbell, a strain gauge 290 is affixed to a first one of the pair of end supports and measures a strain applied to the first one of the pair of end supports by the load on the winch line; and a computing circuit converts the measured strain to an output signal indicative of a weight of the load on the winch line (See Fig. 44, See Pg. 6, Para. 0288 and Pg. 18, Para. 0515 and 0520). Campbell fails to disclose that a winch drum is rotated to wind and unwind a winch line to lift and lower a load on the winch line; and a pair of end supports hold the winch drum and affix the winch drum to the load lifting machine. However, Fukumori discloses an apparatus comprising a sensor affixed to a drum or end support 17B, a winch 17 having a rope 19 wound onto the drum or end support 17B, the drum being rotatable to wind and unwind the rope affixed to the load to lift and lower the load and a pair of end supports hold the winch drum and affix the winch drum to the load lifting machine (See Pg. 1, Para. 0008, Pg. 3, Para. 0040 and Pg. 6, Para. 0069). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Campbell according to the teachings of Fukumori for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device allows an operator to recognize errors in work information and the number of turns set in a safety apparatus (See Fukumori, Pg. 1, Para. 0005).
Regarding claim 16, in Campbell, a strain gauge 290 is affixed to a first one of the pair of end supports and measures a strain applied to the first one of the pair of end supports by the load on the winch line; and a computing circuit receives and converts the measured strain to an output signal indicative of a weight of the load on the winch line (See Fig. 44, See Pg. 6, Para. 0288 and Pg. 18, Para. 0515 and 0520). Campbell fails to disclose a winch having a rotatable drum winding and unwinding a winch line to lift the load, the winch being mounted to the lifting machine by at least one end support. However, Fukumori discloses an apparatus comprising a sensor affixed to a drum or end support 17B, a winch 17 having a rope 19 wound onto the drum or end support 17B, the drum being rotatable to wind and unwind the rope affixed to the load to lift and lower the load and a pair of end supports hold the winch drum and affix the winch drum to the load lifting machine (See Pg. 1, Para. 0008, Pg. 3, Para. 0040 and Pg. 6, Para. 0069). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Campbell according to the teachings of Fukumori for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device allows an operator to recognize errors in work information and the number of turns set in a safety apparatus (See Fukumori, Pg. 1, Para. 0005).
5. Claims 6, 7, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell and Fukumori, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Kholwadwala et al. (7,426,873, hereinafter Kholwadwala – See IDS dated 8/5/25). Regarding claim 6, Campbell and Fukumori fail to disclose that the plurality of strain gauges is placed in a bridge configuration. However, Kholwadwala discloses an apparatus comprising an array of pressure sensors 612 that are arranged in a wheatstone bridge configuration (See Col. 8, lines 25 – 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Campbell and Fukumori according to the teachings of Kholwadwala for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device enables the pressure sensor to be expressed as a small analog differential voltage (See Kholwadwala, Col. 8, lines 32 – 42).
Regarding claim 7, Campbell and Fukumori fail to disclose that the plurality of strain gauges comprises a plurality of micro-electro-mechanical strain gauges. However, in Kholwadwala, the array of pressure sensors 612 comprises a plurality of micro-electro-mechanical strain gauges (See Col. 8, lines 25 – 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Campbell and Fukumori according to the teachings of Kholwadwala for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device enables the pressure sensor to be expressed as a small analog differential voltage (See Kholwadwala, Col. 8, lines 32 – 42).
Regarding claim 12, Campbell and Fukumori fail to disclose that the strain gauge is a micro-electro-mechanical strain gauge. However, in Kholwadwala, the pressure sensors 612 comprises a micro-electro-mechanical strain gauge (See Col. 8, lines 25 – 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Campbell and Fukumori according to the teachings of Kholwadwala for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device enables the pressure sensor to be expressed as a small analog differential voltage (See Kholwadwala, Col. 8, lines 32 – 42).
Regarding claim 13, Campbell fails to disclose at least one additional strain gauge affixed to the first one of the pair of end supports and measuring the strain applied to the first one of the pair of end supports by the load on the winch line, the measured strain from the at least one additional strain gauge being converted by the signal conditioning circuit, along with the measured strain from the strain gauge, to generate the output signal indicative of the weight of the load on the winch line. However, in Fukumori, at least one additional strain gauge is affixed to the first one of the pair of end supports and measures the strain applied to the first one of the pair of end supports by the load on the winch line, the measured strain from the at least one additional strain gauge being converted by the signal conditioning circuit, along with the measured strain from the strain gauge, to generate the output signal indicative of the weight of the load on the winch line (See Pg. 4, Para. 0045 and Pg. 6, Para. 0069). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Campbell and Fukumori according to the teachings of Kholwadwala for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device enables the pressure sensor to be expressed as a small analog differential voltage (See Kholwadwala, Col. 8, lines 32 – 42).
6. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell, Fukumori, and Kholwadwala, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Stansloski et al. (2019/0195733, hereinafter Stansloski – See IDS dated 7/12/23). Regarding claim 14, Campbell, Fukumori, and Kholwadwala fail to disclose that the strain gauge and the at least one additional strain gauge are affixed to the first one of the pair of end supports at an angle with respect to one another. However, Stansloski discloses a method and apparatus comprising strain gages that are arranged in a rosette pattern (See Fig. 3B, See Pg. 5, Para. 0111). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Campbell Fukumori, and Kholwadwala according to the teachings of Stansloski for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device measures strain to determine performance or detect malfunctions of rotating equipment that uses bearings (See Stansloski, Pg. 1, Para. 0002).
Regarding claim 15, Campbell and Fukumori fail to disclose that the strain gauge and the at least one additional strain gauge are arranged in a bridge configuration. However, Kholwadwala discloses an apparatus comprising an array of pressure sensors 612 that are arranged in a wheatstone bridge configuration (See Col. 8, lines 25 – 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Campbell and Fukumori according to the teachings of Kholwadwala for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device enables the pressure sensor to be expressed as a small analog differential voltage (See Kholwadwala, Col. 8, lines 32 – 42).
7. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell and Fukumori, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Stansloski. Regarding claim 17, in Campbell, detecting the strain comprises detecting the strain with each of the plurality of strain gauges; receiving the detected strain comprises receiving the detected strain from each of the plurality of strain gauges; and converting the detected strain comprises converting the detected strain from each of the plurality of strain gauges to the weight with the computing circuit (See Fig. 9, See Pg. 6, Paras. 0287 – 0289).
Campbell and Fukumori fail to disclose that applying a strain gauge comprises applying a plurality of strain gauges at varying angles with respect to one another. However, Stansloski discloses a method and apparatus comprising strain gages that are arranged in a rosette pattern (See Fig. 3B, See Pg. 5, Para. 0111). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Campbell Fukumori according to the teachings of Stansloski for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device measures strain to determine performance or detect malfunctions of rotating equipment that uses bearings (See Stansloski, Pg. 1, Para. 0002).
8. Claims 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell, Fukumori, and Stansloski, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kholwadwala. Regarding claim 18, Campbell, Fukumori, and Stansloski fail to disclose that applying a strain gauge comprises applying the plurality of strain gauges in a bridge configuration. However, Kholwadwala discloses an apparatus comprising an array of pressure sensors 612 that are arranged in a wheatstone bridge configuration (See Col. 8, lines 25 – 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Campbell, Fukumori and Stansloski according to the teachings of Kholwadwala for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device enables the pressure sensor to be expressed as a small analog differential voltage (See Kholwadwala, Col. 8, lines 32 – 42).
Regarding claim 19, Campbell fails to disclose displaying the weight on a display. However, in Fukumori, a display indicates the weight of the load (See Pg. 4, Para. 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Campbell according to the teachings of Fukumori for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device allows an operator to recognize errors in work information and the number of turns set in a safety apparatus (See Fukumori, Pg. 1, Para. 0005).
Regarding claim 20, in Campbell, the processor 102 includes a memory 104 (See Pg. 6, Para. 0289).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on Pg. 6, lines 7 – 17 and Pg. 7, lines 1 – 8, with
respect to these claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
11. Kikuo (JPS61217479) discloses a winch. Hausladen et al. (20200207596) discloses a free fall winch. Choi (KR101690231) discloses a winch system with loadcell and indicator. Ives et al. (9162853) disclose drum load monitoring. Ishise et al. (JP2749959) disclose an excavation depth detection method of excavator. Leveugle (4,886,174) discloses a load compensating device for a handling machine and process for carrying out such compensation. 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 11/6/25