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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 20 require “the cable drum is coaxial with the plurality of friction disks,” which is not supported by the original disclosure. Applicant’s amendment to claim 9 has changed “the cable drum” to reference the cable winding drum, not the capstan drum. There is no disclosure that the cable take-up drum is coaxial with the friction disks. Contrary, if the take-up drum were coaxial with the friction plates the cable would not properly move between the capstan drum and the take-up drum because they would necessarily be coaxial as well.
Claims 11 and 14-17 inherit the deficiencies of claim 10.
Claim 18 recites “the capstan comprising a clutch assembly in operable communication with the cable drum and the motor,” which is not supported by the original disclosure. Applicant’s amendment to claim 18 lines 2 and 4 has changed “the cable drum” to reference the cable winding drum, not the capstan drum. As the claims are read in light of the disclosure, it is impossible to guess what this claim limitation means. How could the clutch assembly of the capstan be in “operable communication” with the cable take-up drum? Does the friction clutch of the capstan drum somehow operate to let the take-up drum slip? If the drums are separate, and have separate drives, how would the friction clutch of the capstan effect any operative change in the take-up drum?
Claims 19-20 inherit the deficiencies of claim18
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 7, 10-12 and 14-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 11 recite “the pressure plate,” which no longer has antecedent basis.
Claim 10 requires “the cable drum is coaxial with the plurality of friction disks,” which is not supported by the original disclosure. Applicant’s amendment to claim 9 has changed “the cable drum” to reference the cable winding drum, not the capstan drum. As the claims are read in light of the disclosure, it is impossible to guess what this claim limitation means. How could the rope move between the capstan drum and the take-up drum if they are coaxial? What is being claimed?
Claims 11 and 14-17 inherit the deficiencies of claim 10.
Claims 12 and 13 recite “the capstan drum,” which recitations lack antecedent basis.
Claim 18 recites “the capstan comprising a clutch assembly in operable communication with the cable drum and the motor,” which is not supported by the original disclosure. Applicant’s amendment to claim 18 lines 2 and 4 has changed “the cable drum” to reference the cable winding drum, not the capstan drum. As the claims are read in light of the disclosure, it is impossible to guess what this claim limitation means. How could the clutch assembly of the capstan be in operable communication with the cable take-up drum? If the drums are separate, and have separate drives, how would the friction clutch of the capstan effect any operative change in the take-up drum?
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 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,192,126 B1 (hereinafter “Young”).
Regarding claim 1 Young teaches a clutch assembly (fig. 12) for a hoist, comprising:
a gear train (111);
a plurality of friction disks (131/131’) rotationally coupled to the gear train (111);
a shaft (120) rotationally coupled to the plurality of friction disks (131/131’) and having (holding in possession) a radial flange (132’);
a disk spring (133) configured to apply a biasing force to the plurality of friction disks (131/131’); and
an adjustment nut (136) configured to be coupled to the shaft (120) on [the same] side of the friction disks (131/131’) [as] the disk spring (133), the adjustment nut (136) configured to apply an adjustable compression force (col. 8 ll. 19-29) to the disk spring (133) against the radial flange (132’) of the shaft (120).
As Young’s disk spring is on the same side as the adjustment nut, Young fails to teach the adjustment nut configured to be coupled to the shaft on an opposing side of the friction disks from the disk spring. Thus the only difference between Young and claim 1 is considered mere rearrangement of parts, which is considered an obvious variation. That is, moving the spring of Young to the opposite side of the friction plates would predictably yield the claimed invention, and would accomplish the original function in the same (known) way (i.e. by applying a clamping force on the pressure plates). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the spring of Young to the other side of the friction plates with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide a strong and resilient slip clutch.
Regarding claim 2 modified Young teaches the above assembly. Young further teaches wherein the gear train (111) is coaxial with the plurality of friction disks (131/131’).
Regarding claim 3 modified Young teaches the above assembly. Young further teaches wherein the adjustment nut (136) and the disk spring (133), are configured to axially compress the plurality of friction disks (131/131’) therebetween (as per the combination above).
Regarding claim 4 modified Young teaches the above assembly. Young further teaches a capstan drum (140) configured to transfer torque from the plurality of friction disks (131/131’) to a cable (145), the capstan drum (140) coaxial with the plurality of friction disks (131/131’).
Regarding claim 6 modified Young teaches the above assembly. Young further teaches wherein the adjustment nut (136) is configured to set a slip threshold (col. 8 ll. 19-29).
Regarding claim 7 modified Young teaches the above assembly. Young further teaches wherein the adjustment nut (136) rotates relative to the shaft (120), moving axially along the shaft (120) and compressing the disk spring (133) and [a] pressure plate (132) to axially compress the plurality of friction disks (131/131’) (col. 8 ll. 19-29).
Regarding claim 8 modified Young teaches the above assembly. Young further teaches wherein compressing the plurality of friction disks (131/131’) increases a torque capacity on the clutch assembly (fig. 12) (col. 8 ll. 19-29).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of US 2020/0307971 A1 (hereinafter “Maghsoodi”).
Regarding claim 5 modified Young teaches the above assembly, but fails to teach a ball ramp assembly rotationally coupled to the capstan drum. Maghsoodi teaches a winch with capstan drum (12) having a similar nut-adjustable friction clutch (38). Maghsoodi further teaches a ball ramp assembly (132) rotationally coupled to the capstan drum (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add ball ramp features, as taught by Maghsoodi, to the friction clutch of Young with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better transfer torque (Maghsoodi par. 33).
Claims 9-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of US 2020/0307971 A1 (hereinafter “Schmidt”).
Regarding claims 9 and 18 Young discloses a hoist, comprising:
a motor (col. 4 ll. 2-4) configured to [provide rotational drive];
a capstan (140) coupled [to raise] a load, the capstan (140) comprising a clutch assembly (fig. 12) in operable communication with the [capstan] (140) and the motor (col. 4 ll. 2-4) comprising:
a gear train (111);
a plurality of friction disks (131/131’) rotationally coupled to the gear train (111);
a disk spring (133) configured to apply a biasing force to the plurality of friction disks (131/131’);
a shaft (120) rotationally coupled to the plurality of friction disks (131/131’); and
an adjustment nut (136) configured to be coupled to the shaft (120) and to apply an adjustable compression force (col. 8 ll. 19-29) to the disk spring (133).
Young fails to teach a separate take-up drum with the capstan between the load and the take-up drum. Schmidt teaches a capstan (120) for lifting a load. Schmidt further teaches a cable take-up drum (130), with the capstan (120) between the load and cable take-up drum (130); and a drive train rotationally coupled to the cable drum (130) (i.e. or else it would not rotate). 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 drum of Young into a capstan drive and accompanying take-up drum 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 the amount of pressure on the lower windings of cable.
Regarding claim 10 modified Young teaches the above assembly. Young further teaches wherein [the capstan] (140) is coaxial with the plurality of friction disks (131/131’).
Regarding claim 11 modified Young teaches the above assembly. Young further teaches wherein the adjustment nut (136) and the disk spring (133), and [a] pressure plate (132) are configured to axially compress the plurality of friction disks (131/131’)
Regarding claim 12 modified Young teaches the above assembly. Young further teaches wherein the [capstan (140)] is configured to transfer torque from the plurality of friction disks (131/131’) to a cable, the capstan (140) drum coaxial with the plurality of friction disks (131/131’).
Regarding claim 14 modified Young teaches the above assembly. Young further teaches wherein the adjustment nut (136) is configured to set a slip threshold (col. 8 ll. 19-29).
Regarding claim 15 modified Young teaches the above assembly. Young further teaches wherein the adjustment nut (136) rotates relative to the shaft (120), moving axially along the shaft (120) and compressing the disk spring (133) to axially compress the plurality of friction disks (131/131’) (col. 8 ll. 19-29).
Regarding claim 16 modified Young teaches the above assembly. Young further teaches wherein compressing the plurality of friction disks (131/131’) increases a torque capacity on the clutch assembly (fig. 12) (col. 8 ll. 19-29).
Regarding claims 17 and 19 modified Young teaches the above assembly, but fails to teach a housing. Schmidt teaches a housing (see fig. 1) located around the capstan assembly such that the clutch assembly is integral to the hoist. 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 housing around the clutch assembly of Young, as taught by Schmidt, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better keep components clean, and provide safety for operators.
Regarding claim 20 modified Young teaches the above assembly. Young further teaches wherein [the capstan] (140) is coaxial with the plurality of friction disks (131/131’).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Schmidt, and in further view of Maghsoodi.
Regarding claim 13 modified Young teaches the above assembly, but fails to teach a ball ramp assembly rotationally coupled to the capstan drum. Maghsoodi teaches a winch with capstan drum (12) having a similar nut-adjustable friction clutch (38). Maghsoodi further teaches a ball ramp assembly (132) rotationally coupled to the capstan drum (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add ball ramp features, as taught by Maghsoodi, to the friction clutch of Young with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better transfer torque (Maghsoodi par. 33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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
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