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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “A hoist adapted to be attached to a parapet wall associated with a rooftop of a building…” This is interpreted as requiring a hoist which could be used with a parapet wall, but not as requiring a parapet per se, or a rooftop of a building. Thus a prior art reference need only teach a hoist useable with a parapet, and not a parapet per se.
Response to Arguments
Applicant incorporated elements from original claims 2-3 into current claim 1, and additionally added limitations not present in original claims 2-3. Claims 21-25 have been newly added.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pages 12-14) about the Office’s use of Spitzbergen element 34. This argument is now moot because the rejection, newly formed based on Applicant’s amendment, does not use element 34. That is, element 100 is used to teach the claimed rail. It is noted that the claims use terms such as “configured with,” “attached to,” and “engaged with.” These terms do not require a direct connection, and are treated as such.
In the above, Applicant argues (pages 14-15) that Spitzbergen 34 does not extend outward beyond a surface of the parapet opposite the parapet’s front surface. While element 100 is now used to teach the rail, a discussion of claim interpretation is still merited. Namely, the claim does not require a parapet at all. Claim 1 merely requires a hoist assembly useable with a parapet of unknown dimensions, shape, and type. It is argued that Spitzbergen 100 could be used in the way claimed by Applicant.
Applicant argues (pages 15-16) that in the previous combination the pulley of Sears would have to be arbitrarily placed on the beam 34 of Spitzbergen (even though original claim 3 said “configured with,” and not “directly attached to”). In any case, element 100 is used in the current rejection for teaching the rail, and putting a pulley thereon is conventional in the crane arts. Even so, it is noted that the pulley is only claimed as being “attached” to the rail distal end, and does not require a direct coupling, as insinuated by Applicant.
Applicant argues (pages 16-18) that Sears fails to teach several limitations. This is not persuasive because Sears is only relied upon to teach the pulley.
Likewise, on page 19 Applicant discusses the Stone reference, but does not traverse the portion of Stone relied upon in this action.
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 7-8 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 8 each recite “the vertical axis,” which lacks antecedent basis.
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 1, 4-5, 7-8, 19-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0131636 A1 (hereinafter “Spitsbergen”) in view of US 5,738,185 (hereinafter “Sears”).
Regarding claim 1 Spitsbergen discloses a hoist assembly adapted to be attached (i.e. made in a manner in which it could be attached) to a parapet wall (130) associated with a rooftop of a building including a parapet front surface, a parapet rear surface, and a parapet top surface (e.g. see fig. 6), the hoist assembly comprising:
a first clamping member (42) adapted to engage (at 46) the parapet front (left) surface (see fig. 6), and a second clamping member (38) opposite the first clamping member (42) and adapted to engage the parapet rear (right) surface (see fig. 6);
a rail (100) configured with (i.e. in the same assembly as) the first clamping member (42) and with the second clamping member (38), the rail (100) configured to extend across (made in a manner in which it can extend across; i.e. this is a functional recitation) the parapet top (130) surface and including a rail (100) distal end (left end in fig. 3) extending outward beyond the parapet front surface (i.e. could extend beyond a parapet front surface), the rail (100) distal end (left end in fig. 3) including a first [line rerouting assembly (RA, see figure below)] attached thereto;
PNG
media_image1.png
498
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a line gripping assembly (116) configured to receive a line (115) and to pull the line in a first direction (vertical);
a base member (50) configured with (in the same assembly as) the line gripping assembly (116) and adapted to engage the parapet top surface;
a hub (drum of winch 116) coupled to the line gripping assembly (116) and attachable to a rotatable power tool (motor of winch 116);
wherein the first [line rerouting assembly (RA)] is adapted to translate an orientation of the line (see fig. 2);
wherein the rotatable power tool (motor of winch 116) when attached to the hub (drum of winch 116) causes the hub (drum of winch 116) to rotate which causes the line gripping assembly (116) to rotate about a center axis (longitudinal axis of 116) and to pull the line in the first direction (vertical).
It is hard to tell whether or not Spitsbergen uses a pulley, or just a lug, to reroute the line.
Sears teaches a similar hoisting assembly comprising a line gripping assembly (winch 74) on a boom for lifting objects. Sears teaches a pulley assembly (48) at the end of the rail to reroute the line into a vertical position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pulley at the end of the boom of Spitsbergen, as taught by Sears, in order to avoid abrading the winch line.
Regarding claim 4 modified Spitsbergen teaches the above assembly, and further teaches wherein the pulley assembly (Sears 48) is adapted to translate the line from a substantially horizontal orientation to a substantially vertical orientation (i.e. boom of Spitzbergen can be oriented substantially horizontally, see Spitsbergen fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5 modified Spitsbergen teaches the assembly as advanced above (see claim 1). Spitsbergen further teaches wherein the hub (drum of winch 116) is rotatable about a vertical axis (i.e. via rotation of 104).
Regarding claim 7 modified Spitsbergen discloses the above assembly (see claim 5), and further discloses wherein the base member (Spitsbergen 50) includes a bottom surface that when engaged with the parapet top surface (at 130) is orthogonal to the vertical axis (longitudinal axis of Spitsbergen 104).
Regarding claim 8 modified Spitsbergen teaches the above assembly (see claim 5), and further teaches wherein a middle point of the base member (Spitsbergen 50) is aligned with the vertical axis (longitudinal axis of Spitsbergen 104).
Regarding claim 19 modified Spitsbergen teaches the above assembly, and further teaches wherein an entirety of the rail (100) is parallel to the parapet (130) top surface (i.e. the parapet is only set forth functionally, and the rail 100 could be angled such that it is parallel with the top surface of element 130).
Regarding claim 20 Spitsbergen teaches a hoist assembly attachable to a separate structure (130), the hoist assembly comprising:
a rail (100) including a rail first end (right end in fig. 3) and a rail second end (left end in fig. 3) and a first [line rerouting assembly (RA, see annotated fig. below)] attached (at least indirectly) to the rail second end (left end in fig. 3);
PNG
media_image1.png
498
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first clamping member (42) connected (at least indirectly) to the rail (100) at a position (i.e. 42 is connected to all parts of 100) between the rail first end (right end in fig. 3) and the rail second end (left end in fig. 3) and adapted to engage (see fig. 6) a first surface of the separate structure (130);
a second clamping member (38) connected (at least indirectly) to the rail first end (right end of 100 in fig. 3) and adapted to engage (see fig. 6) a second surface of the separate structure (130) opposite the first surface of the separate structure (130); and
a line gripping assembly (116) configured with the rail (100) to receive a line (115) and to pull the line (115) in a first direction, the line gripping assembly (116) attachable to a power tool (motor of winch);
wherein the first [line rerouting assembly (RA )] is adapted to translate an orientation of the line (115);
wherein the rotatable power tool (motor of winch) when attached to the line gripping assembly (116) causes the line gripping assembly (116) to pull the line (115) in the first direction.
It is hard to tell whether or not Spitsbergen uses a pulley, or just a lug, to reroute the line.
Sears teaches a similar hoisting assembly comprising a line gripping assembly (winch 74) on a boom for lifting objects. Sears teaches a pulley assembly (48) at the end of the rail to reroute the line into a vertical position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pulley at the end of the boom of Spitsbergen, as taught by Sears, in order to avoid abrading the winch line.
Regarding claim 21 modified Spitsbergen teaches the above assembly, and further teaches wherein the rail (100) is linear from the rail first end (right end in fig. 3) to the rail second end (left end in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 23 modified Spitsbergen teaches the above assembly, and further teaches wherein the first clamping member (42) is slidably connected (at least indirectly; i.e. 42 slides on threads as at 36, which is connected indirectly to 100) to the rail (100).
Regarding claim 24 modified Spitsbergen teaches the above assembly, and further teaches wherein an entirety of the rail (100) is parallel to a top surface of the separate structure (130) (i.e. the parapet is only set forth functionally, and the rail 100 could be angled such that it is parallel with the top surface of element 130).
Regarding claim 25 modified Spitsbergen teaches the above assembly, and further teaches a base member (118) configured (in assembly) with the line gripping assembly (116) and adapted to engage (at least indirectly) a top surface of the separate structure (130).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitsbergen in view of Sears, and in further view of US 8,918,966 (hereinafter “Stone”).
Regarding claim 9 modified Spitsbergen teaches the assembly as advanced above (see claim 1), but fails to teach a braking assembly adapted to affect movement of the line. Stone teaches a lifting system with a line (52) for lifting a load. Stone further teaches using a braking assembly adapted to affect movement of (i.e. applying a braking force to) the line (52) (see title, abstract, and figs. 1d-1e). 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 brake of Stone to the hoisting assembly of Spitsbergen with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to stop the load from inadvertently falling (per Stone Abstract).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitsbergen in view of Sears, and in further view US 10,421,651 B1 (hereinafter “Coleman”).
Regarding claim 22 modified Spitsbergen teaches the above assembly, but fails to teach the releasably attachable power tool as per claim 22. Coleman teaches a mobile hoist assembly with a line gripping assembly (130) similar to Spitsbergen. Coleman further teaches wherein a power tool (144) is separate from the hoist assembly and releasably attachable to the line gripping assembly (130), and wherein and when the power tool (144) is attached to the line gripping assembly (130), the power tool (144) rotates the line gripping assembly (130). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the line gripping tool and power tool of Coleman in the hoist of Spitsbergen, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to make the hoist lighter, and the motor for the winch easier and more accessible for users to obtain (i.e. standard electric drills are easy to come by).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to anticipate or make obvious the entire combination of claim recitations set forth in either of claims 10 or 15. Specifically, these claims require:
a first clamping member and a second clamping member opposite the first clamping member; a line gripping assembly configured to receive a line and to pull the line in a first direction; and [claim 10: “a ladder attachment assembly comprising:”] a support beam; a first attachment bracket coupled to the support beam and adapted to engage a first ladder rung; a second attachment bracket coupled to the support beam and adapted to engage a second ladder rung; and a mount coupled to the support beam and adapted to be secured between the first and second clamping members.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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