DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/13/26 has been entered.
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, 3-4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,736,929 (hereinafter “McMorris”).
Regarding claim 1 McMorris discloses a winch assembly, comprising:
a motor (16);
a drum (36) driven by the motor (16);
a housing (H; see annotated fig. 2 below) defining a first housing side (left side in fig. 2) and a second side (right side in fig. 2), the drum (36) extending through the housing (H); and
PNG
media_image1.png
610
937
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a fairlead (F) having a curved profile (P, see annotated fig. 2 below) extending from the first housing (left) side to the second housing (right) side, the fairlead (F) being directly coupled to a (bottom) face of the housing (H) to structurally integrate the fairlead (F) to the housing (H), wherein the fairlead (F) is configured to couple to at least a portion of a vehicle via one or more fasteners (see col. 2 lines 20-26).
PNG
media_image2.png
224
359
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3 McMorris discloses the above assembly, and further discloses a gearbox (78) having an input (80) configured to receive shaft work from the motor (16) and an output (92) configured to rotate (via 96) the drum (36), the drum (36) extending between the motor (16) and the gearbox (78).
Regarding claim 4 McMorris discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein the fairlead (F) includes a slot (see figure 2) that extends longitudinally between the motor (16) and the gearbox (78).
Regarding claim 9 McMorris discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein the fairlead (F) is stacked on and directly coupled to the housing (H) via the one or more fasteners, and wherein the housing (H) is coupled directly to a vehicle, via the one or more fasteners (see col. 2 lines 20-26).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMorris in view of US 3,565,402 (hereinafter “Linke”).
Regarding claims 5-6 McMorris discloses the above assembly (see claim 3, above), but fails to disclose the sensor of claims 5-6. Linke teaches a winch with a guide (17) having a slot (fig. 6) through which a winch cable (14) extends. Linke further teaches a sensor (35), the sensor (35) being coupled directly to the guide (17) adjacent to the slot (fig. 6) formed in the guide (17); wherein the sensor (35) is an inductive sensor (see paragraph beginning on column 2 line 73), the inductive sensor (35) being configured to detect a state of [a] winch head (15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the magnet sensor of Linke to the winch of McMorris in order to provide an overtravel control to McMorris to prevent accidental damage due to overwinding the line.
Regarding claim 7 the combination of McMorris and Linke teaches the above assembly, and further teaches the inductive sensor senses the presence of [a magnet] (Linke 16) on the winch head (Linke 15/16) when the winch head is a fully retracted position. While Linke teaches a generic magnet (Linke 16), this could either be ferrous, or non-ferrous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ferrous magnet with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to use a typical magnet that is easy to source.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMorris in view of US 10,532,917 (hereinafter “Hall”).
Regarding claim 8 McMorris discloses the above assembly (see claim 1 above), but fails to teach the impact mechanism as per claim 8. Hall teaches a winch for raising and lowering objects. Hall further teaches an impact mechanism (303) driven continuously by the motor (302) and driving the drum (301) with a series of rotational striking blows (column 5 lines 26-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the driving system of McMorris with the hammer and anvil setup of Hall with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to produce more force without having a larger motor (as per Hall).
Claims 10-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of US 5,544,710 A (hereinafter “Groshans”), and in further view of US 6,126,143 A (hereinafter “Fukunaga”).
Regarding claim 10 Hall discloses a winch assembly comprising:
a motor (302);
a drum (301);
a housing (304), the drum (301) extending through the housing (304); and
an impact mechanism (303) driven continuously by the motor (302) and driving the drum (301) with a series of rotational striking blows (column 5 lines 26-31), the impact mechanism (303) includes:
a rotator (“anvil”) coupled with the drum (301) (see col. 5 ll. 15-19); and
a striker collar (“hammer”) coupled with the motor (302) (see col. 5 ll. 15-19);
[the rotator] configured to receive a torque spike from the impact mechanism (303) and transfer the torque spike to the drum (301).
It is not clear if the embodiment of Hall fig. 3 teaches the striker collar around the rotator. Figure 7B of Hall (possibly a different embodiment) teaches a striker collar (702b) positioned around a rotator (702d). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the striker collar of Hall fig. 3 as taught in Hall fig. 7B with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to properly rotate the rotator with the striker collar.
Hall fails to teach the oil bath set forth in claim 10. Groshans teaches an impact driving mechanism with a rotator and striker (see title and abstract). Groshans further teaches an oil bath (col. 2 lines 3-19), wherein the rotator (53) and the striker collar (45) are positioned (at least partially) within the oil bath (see col. 2 lines 3-19 and col. 1 lines 6-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the oil bath and clutch mechanism of Groshans to the impact-winch of Hall with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to reduce wear on the hammer and anvil of Hall.
Hall fails to show a gearbox. Fukunaga teaches a lightweight winch (see col. 5 ll. 50-51) for hoisting loads via a winding drum (16). Fukunaga further teaches a gearbox (20-25) coupled (at least indirectly) to a housing (15) and the drum (16), the gearbox (20-25) configured to receive [torque from a motor (10)] and transfer the torque [to] the drum (16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the lightweight gearbox of Fukunaga to the winch of Hall with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to be able to lessen the overall size of the motor (which is important to Hall in col. 1 ll. 15-39. Being lightweight is mentioned in Fukunaga col. 5 ll. 50-51).
Regarding claim 11 modified Hall teaches the above assembly, and further teaches wherein the rotator (Hall “anvil”) is configured to receive impact from the series of rotational striking blows from the striker collar (Hall 702b), the rotator (Hall “anvil”) coupled to an input of the drum (Hall 301).
Regarding claim 12 modified Hall teaches the above assembly, and further teaches wherein the striker (Hall “hammer”) and the rotator (Hall “anvil”) are mechanically coupled.
Regarding claim 15 modified Hall teaches the above assembly, but does not teach the material from which the striker or rotator are made. Hall does disclose a wide variety of materials suitable for use in winches, including metal (i.e. steel or aluminum; see column 4 lines 30-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the striker and rotator of Hall from any appropriate material, including metal, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to make a strong and reliable component.
Regarding claim 16 modified Hall teaches the above assembly (see claim 10 above), and further teaches a ratchet mechanism or brake (Hall 306) configured to prevent unintended back spinning of the drum (Hall 301) when the motor (Hall 302) is not operating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has added limitations to independent claims 1 and 10, and deleted from claim 1 subject matter previously determined as absent in the McMorris reference.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (pages 6-8) that McMorris fails to teach a curved profile. This is not persuasive. McMorris has a curved profile (P) in the sense that the surface of the fairlead is curved in multiple places. Furthermore, the fairlead aperture through which the rope travels also has a curved profile. These curved surfaces pass from one side of the frame to the other. The rejection is maintained.
PNG
media_image2.png
224
359
media_image2.png
Greyscale
McMorris, Annotated Partial Figure 2
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10-12 and 15-16 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time.
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, Victoria P Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/NATHANIEL L ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights