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 .
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 1, 3-4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,736,929 (hereinafter “McMorris”) in view of US 2020/0024112 A1 (hereinafter “Christensen”).
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), the drum (36) extending through the housing (H); and
PNG
media_image1.png
610
937
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a fairlead (F), the fairlead (F) being directly coupled to a 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 (at least indirectly) via one or more fasteners (see col. 2 lines 20-26); the fairlead (F) defining a rear surface facing the housing (H; see fig. 2).
McMorris teaches the use of bracing ribs (R; see annotated fig. 2 below), but fails to teach a bracing rib on the rear surface as set forth in claim 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
506
937
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Christensen teaches a winch with a drum within a housing. Christensen further teaches the general use of strengthening ribs (86/88), and explicitly states that strengthening ribs are “known in the art” as “one of the ways to strengthen a part” (see par. 50). Therefore, the rib limitations appear to represent no more than well-known and obvious variation. Adding a rib to any component of McMorris would have yielded the predictable (and art recognized) result of strengthening that component, as taught in Christensen. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a generic strengthening rib, as is known in the art generally (and specifically taught by Christensen), to the rear surface of the fairlead of McMorris with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to strengthen the fairlead of McMorris.
Regarding claim 3 modified McMorris teaches the above assembly, and further teaches 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 modified McMorris teaches the above assembly, and further teaches wherein the fairlead (F) includes a slot (see figure 2) that extends longitudinally between the motor (16) and the gearbox (78).
Regarding claim 9 modified McMorris teaches the above assembly, and further teaches 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).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMorris and Christensen in view of US 3,565,402 (hereinafter “Linke”).
Regarding claims 5-6 modified McMorris teaches 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, Christensen, 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 and Christensen in view of US 10,532,917 (hereinafter “Hall”).
Regarding claim 8 modified McMorris teaches the above assembly (see claim 1 above), but fails to teach the impact mechanism as per claim 8. Hall teaches (as above) 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”).
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).
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.
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’s arguments (pages 6-9) with respect to claims 1-9 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.
Applicant’s arguments (pages 9-10) with respect to the previous rejection of claims 10-12 and 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.
Applicant's arguments (pages 10-12) filed 03/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 10-12) that Groshans fails to teach the oil bath of claim 10. This is not persuasive. Claim 10’s oil bath recitation merely states that the rotator and striker collar are “within the oil bath,” and requires little more. No size, shape, or function of the oil bath, or (e.g.) what percentage of the elements are within the oil bath is set forth. Groshans’ rotator and striker collar (53/45) both contact the oil, and therefore could be considered as being at least partially within (i.e. in the range or scope or sphere of) the oil bath (see col. 2 lines 3-19; col. 1 lines 6-17; and col. 5 lines 7-15).
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 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.
/N.L.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights