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. Priority Benefit of earlier filing date of 04/05/2022 of provisional application No. 63/327,420 is acknowledged as required by 35 U.S.C. 119. CLAIM INTERPRETATION The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; the following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim 1 recites “a keeper control unit configured to have a keeper locked configuration that locks movement of the keeper about the keeper pivot connection with respect to the main body”. The three prong tests are: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or a generic placeholder (unit) (B) the term “means” is modified by functional language (locks movement of the keeper), (C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The third prong is not met. Because claim is modified with act of controlling the keeper and structure having a keeper locked configuration. Therefore the claim is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claim 19 recites “providing a keeper control unit configured to have a keeper locked configuration that locks movement of the keeper about the keeper pivot connection with respect to the main body”. The three prong tests are: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or a generic placeholder (unit) (B) the term “means” is modified by functional language (locks movement of the keeper), (C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The third prong is not met. Because claim is modified with act of controlling the keeper and structure having a keeper locked configuration. Therefore the claim is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claim 7 recites “a hook disengage unit configured to have a locked configuration that locks movement of the load arm about the load arm pivot connection with respect to the main body; and the hook disengage unit configured to have an unlocked configuration that allows movement of the load arm about the load arm pivot connection with respect to the main body”. The three prong tests are: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or a generic placeholder (unit) (B) the term “means” is modified by functional language (locks and allows movement of the load arm), (C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The third prong is not met. Because claim is modified with act of hook disengagement. Therefore the claim is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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 (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 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. Claim s 1-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Brunner ( US 20090072562 A1 ). Regarding claim 1 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a cargo hook (par. 2: “Load hook (also known as cargo hook) arrangements are commonly used when loads are to be transported by means of helicopters and other is similar aircraft”) comprising: a main body (11) ; a load arm (carrying element 20) configured to be pivotally attached to the main body with a load arm pivot connection (pivot point 13) ; a keeper (first blocking element 30) configured to be pivotally attached to the main body through a keeper pivot connection; and a keeper control unit configured to have a keeper locked configuration that locks movement of the keeper about the keeper pivot connection with respect to the main body (par. 42: “The load hook arrangement of FIG. 5 comprises a second blocking mechanism 60 which is in its blocking position, which locks the third blocking element 30 in its blocking position”) . Regarding claim 2 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above ) the keeper control unit is further configured to have a keeper unlocked configuration that allows movement of the keeper about the keeper pivot connection with respect to the main body (releasing position shown in Fig. 6 and described in par. 42 - 44 ). Regarding claim 3 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the keeper control unit comprises mechanical parts (74, 73, 71, 72, 35, 70, 60) configured to configure the keeper in a locked configuration (Fig. 5; par. 4 2 - 44 ) and configure the keeper in an unlocked configuration (Fig. 6; par. 42 - 44 ) . Regarding claim 4 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the keeper control unit comprises electrical parts (sensor 70 which controls the actuating mechanism 70) configured to configure the keeper in a locked configuration (Fig. 5; par. 42 - 44 ) and configure the keeper in an unlocked configuration (Fig. 6; par. 42 - 44 ) . Regarding claim 5 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the keeper control unit is further configured to allow the keeper to be opened and a sling, a tether, a load ring, and/or a strap be located on the load arm. Regarding claim 5 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the keeper control unit is further configured to allow the keeper to be opened (as shown in Fig. 6) and a sling, a tether, a load ring, and/or a strap (load ring described in par. 42) be located on the load arm. Regarding claim 6 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the keeper control unit is further configured to prevent the keeper from opening once the keeper closes (when actuating mechanism 70 and actuating lever 71 are not actuated as described in par. 43) . Regarding claim 7 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a hook disengage unit configured to have a locked configuration (Fig. 2 with carrying element 20 in its closed position; par. 36-40) that locks movement of the load arm about the load arm pivot connection with respect to the main body; and the hook disengage unit configured to have an unlocked configuration (Fig. 4 with carrying element 20 in its open position; par. 36-40) that allows movement of the load arm about the load arm pivot connection with respect to the main body. Regarding claim 19 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a process of implementing a cargo hook (par. 2: “Load hook (also known as cargo hook) arrangements are commonly used when loads are to be transported by means of helicopters and other is similar aircraft”) comprising: providing a main body (11) ; providing a load arm (carrying element 20) configured to be pivotally attached to the main body with a load arm pivot connection (pivot point 13) ; providing a keeper (first blocking element 30) configured to be pivotally attached to the main body through a keeper pivot connection; and providing a keeper control unit configured to have a keeper locked configuration that locks movement of the keeper about the keeper pivot connection with respect to the main body (par. 42: “The load hook arrangement of FIG. 5 comprises a second blocking mechanism 60 which is in its blocking position, which locks the third blocking element 30 in its blocking position”) . Regarding claim 20 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) providing a hook disengage unit configured to have a locked configuration (Fig. 2 with carrying element 20 in its closed position; par. 36-40) that locks movement of the load arm about the load arm pivot connection with respect to the main body; and configuring the hook disengage unit to have an unlocked configuration (Fig. 4 with carrying element 20 in its open position; par. 36-40) that allows movement of the load arm about the load arm pivot connection with respect to the main body. Claims 1- 11, 13-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Brunner ( GB 1463078 A ). Regarding claim 1 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a cargo hook ( page 1, par. 10-13: “ load-lifting or cargo-carrying hooks, and especially but not exclusively to cargo hooks for helicopters ”) comprising: a main body (page 2, par. 5: “main body comprising two spaced check plates 11”) ; a load arm (hook 13) configured to be pivotally attached to the main body with a load arm pivot connection (pivot 12) ; a keeper (guard latch 18) configured to be pivotally attached to the main body through a keeper pivot connection (pivot 17) ; and a keeper control unit (keeper control unit comprises pin 21, stop 22, sensor 23, 24) configured to have a keeper locked configuration (Fig. 2) that locks movement of the keeper about the keeper pivot connection with respect to the main body. Regarding claim 2 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the keeper control unit is further configured to have a keeper unlocked configuration ( 18 shown with dashed line in Fig. 2) that allows movement of the keeper about the keeper pivot connection with respect to the main body. Regarding claim 3 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the keeper control unit comprises mechanical parts configured to configure the keeper in a locked configuration (18 shown with dashed line in Fig. 2) and configure the keeper in an unlocked configuration. Regarding claim 4 , Brunner teaches the keeper control unit comprises electrical parts (microswitch 22) configured to configure the keeper in a locked configuration and configure the keeper in an unlocked configuration. Regarding claim 5 , Brunner teaches the keeper control unit is further configured to allow the keeper to be opened and a sling, a tether, a load ring, and/or a strap (rope or strap 16 shown in Fig. 1) be located on the load arm. Regarding claim 6 , Brunner teaches the keeper control unit is further configured to prevent the keeper from opening once the keeper closes. Regarding claim 7 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a hook disengage unit configured to have a locked configuration that locks movement of the load arm about the load arm pivot connection with respect to the main body (shown in Fig. 2 by hydraulic piston 44 and cylinder 43 ) ; and the hook disengage unit configured to have an unlocked configuration that allows movement of the load arm about the load arm pivot connection with respect to the main body (shown in Fig. 3 by hydraulic piston 44 and cylinder 43 ) . Regarding claim 8 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the keeper control unit comprises: a keeper movement detection unit (microswitch 23 “signals when the latch is fully closed”) ; a keeper movement lock unit (spring) ; and a load arm movement detection unit. Regarding claim 9 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the keeper movement detection unit is configured to detect and/or indicate movement of the keeper (microswitch 23 “signals when the latch is fully closed” , microswitch 23 detects movement of the keeper to and from the closed position ) . Regarding claim 10 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the keeper movement detection unit is configured to detect and/or indicate a keeper opening movement and/or a keeper closing movement (microswitch 23 “signals when the latch is fully closed” , microswitch 23 detects movement of the keeper to and from the closed position ) . Regarding claim 11 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the keeper movement detection unit is configured to detect and/or indicate movement of the keeper with mechanical components and/or electrical components (microswitch 23 “signals when the latch is fully closed” , microswitch 23 detects movement of the keeper to and from the closed position ; it is known that microswitch comprises both mechanical and electrical components) . Regarding claim 13 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the keeper movement lock unit is configured to lock movement of the keeper about the keeper pivot connection after an initial movement of the keeper (keeper is rotated about the pivot 17 to a locked position by spring force until pin 21 is engaged on the latch) . Regarding claim 14 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) wherein the keeper movement lock unit is configured to have a keeper locked configuration that locks movement of the keeper (18 shown with solid line in Fig. 2) ; and wherein the keeper movement lock unit is configured to have a keeper unlocked configuration that unlocks movement of the keeper (18 shown with dashed line in Fig. 2) . Regarding claim 17 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the load arm movement detection unit is configured to detect and/or indicate movement of the load arm (by detection of movement of 28 from Fig. 2 to Fig. 1) . Regarding claim 19 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a process of implementing a cargo hook (page 1, par. 10-13: “load-lifting or cargo-carrying hooks, and especially but not exclusively to cargo hooks for helicopters”) comprising: providing a main body (page 2, par. 5: “main body comprising two spaced check plates 11”) ; providing a load arm (hook 13) configured to be pivotally attached to the main body with a load arm pivot connection (pivot 12) ; providing a keeper (guard latch 18) configured to be pivotally attached to the main body through a keeper pivot connection (pivot 17) ; and providing a keeper control unit (keeper control unit comprises pin 21, stop 22, sensor 23, 24) configured to have a keeper locked configuration (Fig. 2) that locks movement of the keeper about the keeper pivot connection with respect to the main body. Regarding claim 20 , Brunner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) providing a hook disengage unit configured to have a locked configuration that locks movement of the load arm about the load arm pivot connection with respect to the main body (shown in Fig. 2 by hydraulic piston 44 and cylinder 43) ; and configuring the hook disengage unit to have an unlocked configuration that allows movement of the load arm about the load arm pivot connection with respect to the main body (shown in Fig. 3 by hydraulic piston 44 and cylinder 43) . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 12, 15-16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0464 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT David Posigian can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (313) 446-6546 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT MAHDI H. NEJAD Examiner Art Unit 3723 /MAHDI H NEJAD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723