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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/10/26 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “clutch assembly in operable communication with the cable take-up drum” (see claim 18) must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The Office points out the recitation of claim 18: “the clutch assembly in operable communication with the cable take-up drum.” Notably, the original disclosure is a little sparse as to how this action takes place, but it is agreed that there is support for the limitation, at least in that those words are present in the original disclosure. That said, how the clutch (instant 38) affects the take-up drum (instant 12) is not forthcoming. I.e. the clutch is shown (figures 2A and 2B) as driving the capstan assembly (100), not the take-up drum. There is simply no disclosure which explains the particular drive transmission of the take-up drum.
Thus the limitation is taken in the broad sense that the clutch assembly operates with respect to the cable (instant 50), which “communicates” with both the capstan and the take-up drum. Thus slipping/not slipping of the clutch is in indirect “operable communication” with the cable take-up drum. A prior art reference merely needs to show some sort of indirect “operable communication” between the clutch and take-up drum, and not a driving or a slip relationship.
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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,659,689 A (hereinafter “Schindel”).
Regarding claim 1 Schindel teaches a clutch assembly for a hoist, comprising:
a gear train (20);
a plurality of friction disks (24/26) rotationally coupled to the gear train (20);
a shaft (12/12a) rotationally coupled to the plurality of friction disks (24/26) and terminating in a radial flange (40);
a disk spring (28) configured to apply a biasing force to the plurality of friction disks (24/26); and
an adjustment nut (38) configured to be coupled to the shaft (12/12a) on [the same side] of the friction disks (24/26) from the disk spring (28), the adjustment nut (38) configured to apply an adjustable compression force to the disk spring (28) against the radial flange (40) of the shaft (12/12a).
Schindel fails to teach the nut is coupled to the shaft on an opposing side of the friction disks from the disk spring. The only difference between Schindel and claim 1 is the position of the Belleville washer (28; i.e. “disk spring”). Thus the only difference between Schindel and claim 1 is considered mere rearrangement of parts, which is considered an obvious variation. That is, moving the spring of Schindel 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 Schindel 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 Schindel teaches the above assembly, and further teaches wherein the gear train (20) is coaxial with the plurality of friction disks (24/26).
Regarding claim 3 modified Schindel teaches the above assembly, and further teaches wherein the adjustment nut (38) and the disk spring (28) are configured to axially compress the plurality of friction disks (24/26) therebetween (i.e. as per modification above).
Regarding claim 6 modified Schindel teaches the above assembly, and further teaches wherein the adjustment nut (38) is configured to set a slip threshold (col. 2 ll. 20-32).
Regarding claim 7 modified Schindel teaches the above assembly, and further teaches wherein the adjustment nut (38) rotates relative to the shaft (12/12a) (see col. 2 ll. 20-32), moving axially along the shaft (12/12a) and compressing the disk spring (28) against the radial flange (40) (as per the modification above) to axially compress the plurality of friction disks (24/26).
Regarding claim 8 modified Schindel teaches the above assembly, and further teaches wherein compressing the plurality of friction disks (24/26) increases a torque capacity on the clutch assembly.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,192,126 B1 (hereinafter “Young”) in view of Schindel.
Regarding claim 4 Young teaches (see embodiment of fig. 11) a capstan drum (140) configured to transfer torque from a plurality of friction disks (131, 131', 132, 132') to a cable (145), the capstan drum (140) coaxial with the plurality of friction disks (131, 131', 132, 132'); and a first traction flange (see fig. 11) disposed adjacent one axial end of the capstan drum (140).
Young teaches a similar friction slip clutch, but fails to teach the entirety of the clutch assembly of claim 1. Schindel teaches the friction slip clutch as set forth above (see claim 1). 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 friction slip clutch of Young with the slip clutch of Schindel with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to protect the clutch from ambient environment and any dust or debris therein (see Schindel col. 2 ll. 60-63).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Schindel, and in further view of US 2020/0307971 A1 (hereinafter “Maghsoodi”).
Regarding claim 5 modified Young teaches the above assembly (see claim 4), 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 9-10, 12 and 17-20 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 capstan drum (at 144) and a clutch assembly (fig. 12) in operable communication with the [capstan] (140) and the motor (col. 4 ll. 2-4), configured to prevent cable slippage (capable of preventing at least some cable slippage; i.e. this is a functional limitation) at an interface of the cable with the capstan drum (e.g. due to clutch slip at high loads, see col. 5 ll. 36-45, which could prevent slippage due to cable elongation), the clutch assembly 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); the capstan drive of Schmidt is in operable communication with the cable take-up drum at least indirectly through the cable. 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, 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 reduce the amount of pressure on the lower windings of cable.
Regarding claim 10 modified Young teaches the above hoist. Young further teaches wherein the capstan drum (144) is coaxial with the plurality of friction disks (131/131’).
Regarding claim 12 modified Young teaches the above hoist. 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 claims 17 and 19 modified Young teaches the above hoist, 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 hoist. Young further teaches wherein the capstan drum (144) 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 hoist, 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 11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Schmidt, and in further view of US 4,589,523 A (hereinafter “Olson”).
Regarding claim 11 modified Young teaches the above hoist. 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’) against a radial flange (132’) of the shaft (120), wherein the shaft (120) terminates [near] the radial flange (132’) on an opposing side of the plurality of friction disks (131/131’) from the adjustment nut (136). Young fails to teach the shaft terminating in the radial flange. This appears to represent no more than obvious variation in view of Olson.
Olson teaches a winch with a winding drum (40) for winding a cable (12), the winch comprising a friction clutch (see fig. 2) similar to that of Young, the friction clutch having a plurality of friction disks (150/164) on a shaft (130) being biased by an adjustment nut (170). Olson further teaches the shaft (130) terminates in a radial flange (132) against which the friction disks (150/164) are biased by the nut. 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 shaft of Young terminate in a radial flange, as taught by Olson, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to have a better fitment of the parts on the shaft.
Regarding claim 14 modified Young teaches the above hoist. 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 hoist. 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 hoist. 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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 filed 08/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 8; relevant to claims 9 and 18) that Young’s element 120 is not a shaft. This is not persuasive. Merriam Webster’s online dictionary defines “shaft” as: 3: something suggestive of the shaft of a spear or arrow especially in long slender cylindrical form: such as d : a commonly cylindrical bar used to support rotating pieces or to transmit power or motion by rotation. Young’s element 120 is considered a “shaft” under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant has not defined the claimed shaft over the Young reference. The rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's arguments (page 9) against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On pages 10-11 Applicant details alleged steps to making the modification of Young, traversing the rejection of claims 9 and 18 because there would supposedly be too many steps for the ordinary craftsperson to perform. This is not persuasive. Young teaches everything in claim 9 except the secondary winding drum, which is a well-known and conventional teaching in the winch arts (see B66D1/741, which is a collection of capstans with two or more drums, one of which is for storing the cable. This idea is identical to the portions of claims 9 and 18 lacking in Young, and not an esoteric concept beyond an ordinary craftsperson in the winching arts). There is simply nothing new or original for one of ordinary skill in the art to consider in the proposed combination. Adding Schmidt’s teaching of a capstan drum in combination with a winding drum to Young is the only consideration in the combination. In the proposed combination (above) Young would keep the friction slip clutch and drum, and only modify the drum to function as a capstan as taught by Schmidt, and store the line at a winding drum, as also taught by Schmidt. This type of setup aids in reducing the force of the line at the storage drum, which reduces and normalizes stress in the wound portion of the line.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues (page 11) that Young’s slip clutch allegedly would not “prevent cable slippage at an interface of the cable with the capstan drum.” This is not persuasive. Firstly, there is no clutch structure recited in the claims above that found in Young, so it is unclear why Applicant thinks Young would not provide the claimed function. Secondly, a slip clutch designed to slip at high load is capable of preventing at least a small amount of slip between the cable and the capstan by the very nature of providing the slip. That is, before at least some of the slip due to (e.g.) elongation of the cable, the drum slows or stops rotation, thus preventing whatever slip would have occurred thereafter. As the claim does not state or imply anything beyond this, the combination of Young and Schmidt meets the claim limitations.
The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such references show various forms of apparatus which comprise at least one similar feature to the present application.
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