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 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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 requires a “winch” and a seemingly separate “first winch assembly,” which does make sense in light of the specification. Firstly, the term “winch assembly” is only used in the original disclosure in relation to the prior art (figs. 1A and 1B), not in relation to the embodiments of the other figures. What structure is referenced by the claim 1 recitation “a first winch assembly”?
Secondly, the specification uses the term “winch assembly” as including a so-called “winch,” so the wording of claim 1 appears to require two separate winches. This does not make sense, as claim 7 (which depends from claim 1) sets forth a “second winch,” and a (separate) “second winch assembly.” This does not seem in keeping with the specification because there are only two winches disclosed (i.e. “C1” and “C2”), not four.
Applicant is advised to (e.g.) modify the claims to require a spool and winch (elements 301 and C1) instead of a winch and a winch assembly, or to specify in the claims that the winch is a component of the winch assembly. Alternately, Applicant could omit the word “assembly” and stick with “a winch” and “the winch” for each reference to a winch or winch assembly.
For the purposes of this Office Action, the phrase “winch assembly” is being treated as another way of referring to the previously set forth “winch” because there are not four winches in the disclosure.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/065476 A2 (hereinafter “Dalum”) in view of US 20190284029 A1 (hereinafter “Frazier”), and in further view of WO 2014154764 A1 (hereinafter “Greenwood”).
It is noted that Dalum, paragraph 45, states: “Various features of these embodiments [i.e. embodiments of figures 1-7] can be employed in other embodiments described herein”. The various embodiments are therefore treated as a singular teaching.
Regarding claim 1 Dalum teaches a vehicle comprising:
a motor generator (50; see paragraph 49 “electric motor/generator”);
a clutch (paragraph 51 “…and another clutch is between second prime mover 50 and accessory 60”);
a winch (paragraph 47) connected to the motor generator via the clutch (para. 51), the clutch (para. 51) being operative to selectively engage or disengage the winch (para. 47) from the motor generator (via 60; see para. 51).
Dalum mentions a planetary gear drive (paragraph 49), but fails to teach the specific power split device as set forth in claim 1 (i.e. Dalum’s planetary gear set is between the engine and power take off; see paragraph 49).
Frazier teaches a vehicle mounted winch (see paragraph 24) with a motor (106) and clutch (112). Frazier further teaches a power split device (118/122); and the winch is connected to the motor via the clutch (112) and the power split device (118/122), and the power split device (118/122) being operative to control speed of operation of the winch (see paragraph 28).
Dalum fails to teach the speed monitoring and controlling set forth in claim 1. Greenwood teaches a vehicle mounted winch similar to Dalum (see fig. 1). Greenwood further teaches monitoring a rotation speed of the winch and adjusting the rotation speed based on input from a user interface (see page 11 lines 21-24; i.e. the controller would have to monitor the rotational speed in order to perform the disclosed functions) of (at least indirectly connected to) a power splitting device (116G). 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 speed-controlling user interface, as taught by Greenwood, with the winch and power split device of Dalum, in order to give the user more precise control of the winch.
Regarding claim 2 modified Dalum teaches the above vehicle, and further teaches wherein the power split device (Frazier 118/122) comprises a planetary gear (see Frazier paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 3 modified Dalum teaches the above vehicle, and further teaches a winch control component (Frazier 142) operative to control the selective engagement or disengagement of the clutch (Frazier 112).
Regarding claim 4 modified Dalum teaches the above vehicle, and further teaches wherein the winch control component (Frazier 142) is further operative to receive user input (i.e. pulling/twisting; see paragraph 31) directing the operation of the power split device (Frazier 118/122) to control [the] speed of operation of the winch (see Frazier, paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 5 modified Dalum teaches the above vehicle, and further teaches wherein the winch comprises a rotating member to which a cable is connected (a drum/cable set is inherent in the winch of Dalum, also one is shown in Frazier at the so-called “cable drum,” 104), the rotating member (drum) effectuating the directed operation of the power split device (Frazier 118/122).
Regarding claim 6 modified Dalum teaches the above vehicle. Dalum fails to teach the cable guide as set forth in claim 6. Frazier teaches a cable guide (102; i.e. the cable must pass between frame members to exit the drum, 104) through which the cable operatively connected to the rotating member (104) is routed. 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 frame member of Frazier to the generic winch of Dalum 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 stability to the winch of Dalum.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalum in view of Frazier and Greenwood, and in further view of US 6,981,695 (hereinafter “Hedlund”).
Regarding claims 7-12 modified Dalum teaches the vehicle as set forth above. Dalum fails to teach a second winch as set forth in claims 7-12. It is noted that claims 7-12 describe a winch nearly identical to that required by claims 1-6. Thus the difference between Dalum and claims 7-12 represents mere duplication of parts, which is considered an obvious variation in view of Hedlund. Hedlund teaches a vehicle mounted winch with a power source to power the winch (see column 3 lines 1-10). Hedlund further teaches wherein there are a plurality of winches mounted on the same vehicle (see column 3 lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the winch of Dalum, as taught by Hedlund, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to allow an operator to access one of the winches when the other is obstructed (see Hedlund column 1 line 63 to column 2 line 24).
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.
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
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654