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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/26/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 line 2 requires the adapter “is positioned between the coupler and the strap hoist,” but claim 1 (from which claim 6 depends) now recites “the coupler including an adapter.” Is the adapter between the strap hoist and itself? How can it be in between two elements if it is one of the elements?
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 1-2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0179018 A1 (hereinafter “Henderson”).
Regarding claim 1 Henderson discloses a strap hoist assembly comprising:
a strap hoist (H, see annotated fig. below) including a frame (102) and a reel (107) for reeling a strap (120); and
PNG
media_image1.png
533
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a drive assembly (D) removably coupled to the strap hoist (H), the drive assembly (D) including:
a power unit (301), and
an onboard battery pack (B), and
a coupler (302) configured to couple the power unit (301) to the strap hoist (H), the coupler (302) including an adapter (214) defining a pivot axis, the drive assembly (D) configured to provide an output torque to rotate the reel (107) in a rotational direction to apply an output force to the strap (120);
wherein the strap hoist (H) is configured to be powered by the drive assembly (D), and wherein the strap hoist (H) is configured to alternately be manually operated by a handle (410, see par. 35), which is couplable to the reel (107) and pivotable about the pivot axis for rotating the reel (107) when disconnected from the drive assembly (D).
Regarding claim 2 Henderson discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein the strap hoist (H) includes a hook (130) attached to the frame (102).
Regarding claim 4 Henderson discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein the strap hoist (H) includes a pawl and a ratchet wheel (105; see fig. 1A) disposed on the reel (107), wherein the reel (107) freely rotates in the rotational direction when the pawl is disengaged from the ratchet wheel, and wherein the reel (107) does not rotate in the rotational direction when the pawl is engaged with the ratchet wheel (see 105 in fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 6 Henderson discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein the adapter (214) is a first adapter (214) and is positioned between the coupler (302) and the strap hoist (H), and the strap hoist (H) assembly further comprising a second adapter (drill chuck) positioned between the power unit (301) and the coupler (302), wherein the first adapter (214) is configured to remove the drive assembly (D) from the strap hoist (H), and wherein the second adapter (drill chuck) is configured to remove the coupler (302) from the drive assembly (D).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of US 4,613,273 A (hereinafter “Wagner”).
Regarding claim 3 Henderson teaches the above assembly, but fails to teach the particulars of claim 3. Wagner (see fig. 4) teaches a small rotary winding device with a drum (41) and a coupler (37) between a driver (59/62) and drum (41), which is similar to Henderson. Wagner further teaches wherein a frame (45) includes an anti-rotation protrusion (B, i.e. bolt, see annotated fig. 4 below), wherein the drive assembly (59/62) includes a slot (bolt hole in 62), and wherein the anti-rotation protrusion (B) is received within the slot (bolt hole in 62) to restrict rotation of the strap hoist relative to the drive assembly (59/62).
PNG
media_image2.png
543
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 removable anti-rotation protrusion of Wagner to Henderson 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 stabilize the driver of Henderson, as taught by Wagner.
Claims 7, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,256,745 (hereinafter “Latoria”) in view of US 5,607,143 A (hereinafter “Regal”).
Regarding claim 7 Latoria discloses a strap hoist (10) assembly comprising:
a strap hoist (10) including a frame (12) and a reel (24) for reeling a strap (132), the strap hoist (10) having a force rating (i.e. all straps inherently have a break strength, which could be considered a “force rating”);
a drive assembly (DR) removably coupled to the strap hoist (10), the drive assembly (DR) configured to provide an output torque to rotate the reel (24) in a rotational direction to apply an output force to the strap (132); and
PNG
media_image3.png
466
380
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a mechanical advantage mechanism (120/102; see fig. 5) configured to adjust the output torque applied to the reel (24) such that the output force on the strap (132) is equal to or less than the force rating of the strap hoist (10) (i.e. or else the strap would break instead of winding), the mechanical advantage mechanism (120/102; see fig. 5) including a first gear (102) meshed with a second gear (120) and the first (102) and second (120) gears are supported (at least indirectly) on the frame (12). Latoria fails to teach the second gear is supported on the frame when the drive assembly is removed from the strap hoist.
Regal teaches a hoist (10) with a frame (28), and a hoist drum (30) rotated by a battery powered drive assembly (19, i.e. “any cordless power tool,” see col. 4 ll. 27-31). Regal further teaches wherein a drivetrain between the winding device and drive assembly has two gears (24 and 26, see fig. 2) which are both supported by the frame (28) when the drive assembly (19) is removed from the hoist (10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the second gear of Latoria to the frame, as taught by Regal, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to give Latoria redundant options for powering the hoist in the event of power failure or mechanical problems with the motor (i.e. Regal element 16 can be used with many types of power tools).
Regarding claim 9 modified Latoria teaches the above assembly. Latoria further teaches wherein the strap hoist (10) includes a hook (138) attached to the frame (12).
Regarding claim 10 modified Latoria teaches the above assembly. Latoria further teaches wherein the frame (12) includes an anti-rotation protrusion (“six screws;” see col. 4 lines 12-15; i.e. 96 mounts at 108), wherein the drive assembly (DR) includes a slot (screw holes), and wherein the anti-rotation protrusion (screws) is received within the slot (screw holes) to restrict rotation of the strap hoist (10) relative to the drive assembly (DR).
Regarding claim 11 modified Latoria teaches the above assembly. Latoria further teaches wherein the drive assembly (DR) includes a power unit (90) and a coupler (112) configured to couple the power unit (DR) to the strap hoist (10).
Regarding claim 12 modified Latoria teaches the above assembly. Latoria further teaches wherein the power unit (90) is powered by a battery pack (98).
Regarding claim 14 modified Latoria teaches the above assembly. Latoria further teaches wherein the strap hoist (10) is configured to be powered by the drive assembly (DR) or manually operated (at 72) when disconnected from the drive assembly.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latoria in view of Regal and US 2016/0046228 A1 (hereinafter “Williams”).
Regarding claim 13 modified Latoria teaches the above assembly, but fails to teach the particulars of claim 13. Williams teaches an assembly for strap winding which is similar to Latoria (as above). Williams teaches:
a first adapter (52) positioned between the coupler (C; see annotated figure below) and the strap hoist (10), and a second adapter (58) positioned between the power unit (60) and the coupler (C), wherein the first adapter (52) is configured to remove the drive assembly (D) from the strap hoist (10), and wherein the second adapter (58) is configured to remove the coupler (C) from the drive assembly (D).
PNG
media_image4.png
361
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 coupler of Williams between the drive motor and the gearing of Latoria with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to more easily couple and decouple the driver, and in order to make Latoria useable with a wide variety of standard power tools.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 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