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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/5/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
In this case, Applicant has not listed any documents to be considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIGS. 3a-11 and 13-19 have text that is too small and/or blurry to be legible or adequately reproduced.
35 CFR 1.84(p)(3) requires that numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height.
35 CFR 1.84(l) requires that all drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The last sentence of paragraph [0012] does not end with a period and language appears to be missing from the sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
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” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the means for applying flexible pressure” recited in claims 3, 8, and 13; and
“the means of attaching a connection device to the U-arm pivot joint” recited in claim 4, 9, and 14 and
“the means of attaching the straight-arm of the lever-load binder to the second rod of the ratchet binder” as recited in claims 5, 10 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses (“lever-handle 100,” see third to last line of claim 1, and a similar location in claim 6).
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 1, 2, 6-7, and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 4-5, “a first end” and “a second end” appear to be a double recitation of “open ends” recited in line 4. Similarly, “right-hand internal threads” and left-hand internal threads” appears to be a double recitation of “internal threads” recited in line 4 of claim 1. This objection could be overcome by changing the language of line 4 to read --an elongated tube having opposing open ends including a first end and a second end, the first end having right-hand internal threads and the second end having left-hand internal threads.”
Claims 6 and 11 have similar problems.
In claim 1, line 9, both instances of “the rod” lack proper antecedent basis. This objection could be overcome by changing each instance of the noted language to --the first rod--.
Claims 6 and 11 have a similar problem.
In claim 1, line 11, both instances of “the rod” lack proper antecedent basis. This objection could be overcome by changing each instance of the noted language to --the second rod--.
Claims 6 and 11 have a similar problem.
In claim 1, in part I) section c), “a first side” and “a second side” appear to be a double recitation of “two separated sides” recited in line 1 of part c). This objection could be overcome by changing line 1 of part c) to read --a handle assembly comprising a shaft and a first side spaced apart from a second side.-- Then in the later portion of part c), applicant could change “a first side” to --the first side-- and “a second side” to --the second side--.
Claims 6 and 11 have a similar problem.
In claim 1, at the beginning of part I, section d) “a pivotal attached” appears to be a typographical error. This objection could be overcome by replacing the noted language with --a pivotally attached--.
Claims 6 and 11 have a similar problem.
In claim 1, part I), section d), line 8 “a pivot axle” appears to be a double recitation of “an axle” recited on line 3 of section d). This objection could be overcome by changing the langue in line 8 to --said axle--.
Claims 6 and 11 have a similar problem.
In claim 1 part II), section e), “a connection device” appears to be a double recitation of “a connection device” recited at the end of part I), section b)
In claim 2, Applicant has further limited “the connection device.” However, in claim 1, two connection devices have been recited. This objection could be overcome by reciting, in claim 2, “wherein each connection device of each rod comprises . . .”
Claims 7 and 12 have a similar problem.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
In claim 1, lines 15-17, each instance of the phrase “while the rods are stationary in rotation” is vague and indefinite. It appears that rotation of the rods cause them to move closer or further away from one another depending on the direction of rotation. Thus, the rods are not stationary when they are rotating, but instead, are moving along a longitudinal axis of the rods.
Correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 6 and 11 have a similar problem.
In claim 1, in part I, section f), it is not clear what the length of the tube and the rods of a “conventional ratchet load binder” is and therefore, it is not clear what Applicant is claiming as the length of the tube and the rods to be.
Claims 6 and 11 have a similar problem.
In claim 1, in part II, section f), the terms “a U-arm longitudinal centerline” and “a straight-arm-longitudinal-centerline” are vague and indefinite because it is not clear if Applicant is referring to the longitudinal centerlines of the previously recited “U-arm” and “straight-arm” of if Applicant is introducing a new U-arm and straight-arm. For purposes of expediting examination, the claim will be interpreted as the former. This rejection could be overcome by replacing the noted language with --a longitudinal-centerline of said U-arm-- and --a longitudinal-centerline of said straight arm--.
Claim 6 has a similar problem.
In claim 1, at the end of part I), section b), Applicant recites that the binder includes “a connection device or the ability to attach another device to the rod.” Since Applicant has used “or” in this language of claim 1, “a connection device” has not positively been recited as part of the claim. Only the possibility of a connection device has been recited. Thus, in claim 2, “the connection device” has no proper antecedent basis. This rejection could be overcome by changing claim 2 to read, --The lever-and-ratchet-hybrid-load-binder of claim 1, wherein the second end of each rod includes the connection device, wherein each connection device comprises an eyelet, a flexible connector, and a hook.--
In claims 4, 9, and 14, Applicant recites that “the means of attaching a connection device comprises an eyelet a flexible connect, and a hook.” However, Applicant’s specification does not support this statement. Applicant’s specification discloses “an attachment means such as metal welding” (as mentioned in paragraph [0049]). Applicant appears to be mixing up the “means for attaching the connection device” and the “connection device” itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-4, 6-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 4,500,073) in view of in view of Mollick (US2021/0122287) and Durbin (3,418,008).
With respect to claim 1 Smith discloses the claimed lever-and-ratchet-hybrid-load-binder except for:
the ratchet-load-binder comprising the gear rigidly attached to the tube, the gear having externally facing teeth;
the handle assembly of the ratchet-load-binder;
the pivotally attached U-shaped pawl;
it is not clear if the lever-load-binder comprises a straight-arm that pivots in and out of a handle slot and is pivotally connected to the handle; and
a U-arm-longitudinal-centerline and a straight-arm-longitudinal-centerline comprising an approximate pivot degree difference of approximately twelve (12) degrees when the lever-handle is in the closed and held position.
Smith discloses a threaded load-binder combined and attached inline to a lever-load-binder, the combination creating a lever and threaded-hybrid-load-binder comprising
I) a threaded-binder comprising:
a) an elongated tube 7 having an opposing open ends and internal threads, a first end having right-hand internal threads and a second end having left-hand internal threads internal threads (Smith, col. 3, lines 61-68 and col. 4, lines 1-3)
b) a first rod 10 comprising right hand external threads mating to the threads in the first end of the tube (Smith, col. 3, lines 43-44), the threads starting at a first end of the rod and extending along the rod (as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith), a second rod 10 comprising left hand external threads mating to the threads in the second end of the tube, the threads starting at a first end of the rod and extending alone the rod (not shown, but the same as the rod depicted in Fig. 2 of Smith), the first rod threading in the first end of the tube (as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith), the second rod threading in the second end of the tube (not shown, but the same as the redo depicted in Fig. 2 of Smith), the tube movable in a first-rotational-direction and the tube movable in a second-rotational direction, the first-rotational-direction of the tube moves the rods closer to each other while the rods are stationary in rotation, the second-rotational-direction of the tube moves the rods farther away from each other while the rods are stationary in rotation (Smith, col. 3, lines 65-68 and col. 4, lines 1-3), each second end of each rod having a connection device 12,13,4/18/13/5 or the ability to attach another device to the rod (as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith).
Mollick teaches a similar ratchet-load binder including
c) an elongated tube 38 with a gear 34, the gear rigidly attached to the tube, the gear having externally facing teeth 35 encircling the tube a handle assembly 4 comprising a shaft 6 and two separated sides 7/8, the sides rotatably mounted around the tube to rotate completely around the tube while straddling the gear 34, the handle assembly generally perpendicular to the tube, the handle assembly having a first side 7 positioned on one side of the gear 34 and a second side 8 positioned on the opposing side of the gear 34, the handle assembly first and second sides encircling the tube 38 (as shown in Figs. 5-6 of Mollick):
d) a pivotal attached U-shaped-pawl referred herein as a U-pawl 18 with a first tooth 26 on one end of the U-pawl and a second tooth 28 on the opposing end of the U-pawl (as shown in Fig. 6 of Mollick), the first tooth 26 for driving rotation of the tube in the first-rotational-direction and the second tooth 28 for driving the rotation of the tube in the second-rotational-direction (Mollick, paragraph [0122]–note, Mollick misidentifies the first tooth as 22 and the second tooth as 24 in this paragraph), the U- pawl teeth for engaging the gear teeth35, the U-pawl 18 attached to the handle assembly 4 between the first side 7 and the second side 8 (as shown in Fig. 5 of Mollick), the U-pawl 18 pivoting on an axle 30 inserted at a pivot hole 32 on the U-pawl 18 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Mollick), the axle 30 being attached to the handle assembly first side 7 and the second 8 side that straddles the gear 34 (as shown in Fig. 5 of Mollick), a pivot axle 30 on the U-pawl 18 being generally centered between the first tooth 26 and the second tooth 28 of the U-pawl 18 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Mollick), the U-pawl 18 comprising;
i) a first-driving-position 18a (as shown in Fig. 6 of Mollick);
ii) a second-driving-position 18c (as shown in Fig. 9 of Mollick);
iii} a middle-neutral-position 18e (as shown in Fig. 11 of Mollick), and wherein either i) the middle-neutral-position is not securely held in position (Mollick, paragraph [0143]), or ii) the middle-neutral-position is securely held in position;
e) a means 10 for applying flexible pressure on the U-pawl 18 causing the U-pawl to be held securely in either the first-driving-position or the second-driving-position (Mollick, paragraph [0125]), the means for applying flexible pressure on the U-pawl keeping the U-pawl first tooth 26 or the second tooth 28 engaged with the gear teeth 35 during ratcheting rotation of the tube 38, the means 10 for applying flexible pressure on the U-pawl allowing flexible pivotal movement of the U-pawl first tooth 26 or the second tooth 28 around gear teeth roots and gear teeth tips for incremental back and forth movement of the handle assembly 4 and the U-pawl 18 during a ratcheting rotational movement of the tube 38 (Mollick, paragraph [0130]), wherein moving the U-pawl from the first-driving-position to the second-driving-position or vice versa requires the U~ pawl to be manually and forcefully pivoted (Mollick, paragraph [0125]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Mollick with the lever-and-ratchet-hybrid-load-binder disclosed by Smith for the advantage of the ratchet mechanism which provides a convenient device for facilitating rotation of the tube in order to extend or retract the first and second rods into the tubes.
Smith further discloses II) a lever-load-binder comprising:
a handle 1 with a base and a grab end as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 2 of Smith:
[AltContent: textbox (base end)][AltContent: textbox (grab end)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
177
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
b) a U-arm 2 that straddles the handle 1 and is pivotally connected to the handle 1 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Smith);
c) Smith appears to disclose a straight-arm that pivots in and out of a handle slot and is pivotally connected to the handle but this is not clear.
However, Durbin teaches a lever-load-binder that includes a) a handle 21 having a base end 24 and a grab end 22 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Durbin), b) a U-arm 41 that straddles the handle 21 and is pivotally connected to the handle 21 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Durbin), c) a straight-arm 27 that pivots in an out of a handle slot 23 and is pivotally connected to the handle (as shown in Figs. 1-2 of Durbin). Durbin further teaches d) that the U-arm 41 comprises a pivot joint 44 on the end opposing the U-arm handle connection (as shown in Fig. 1 of Durbin); e) a means 46 of attaching a connection device to the U-arm pivot joint 44; and f) the lever load binder comprising i) closed and held position of the handle (as shown in Fig. 2 of Durbin), ii) a middle neutral position of the handle (not-shown, but located between the positions shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 of Durbin in which the handle 21 is pointing straight down), and iii) opening positions of the handle 21 (one of which is shown in Fig. 1 of Durbin and another of which would be with the handle 21 being pivoted a few degrees lower than the position shown in Fig. 1 of Durbin);
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Durbin with the lever-and ratchet-hybrid-load -binder disclosed by Smith for the advantage of the quick-action tightening of a chain or cable by reducing the length between hooks 33 and 45 through a single motion of handle 21.
III) In the combination, Smith teaches a means of attaching the straight-arm 27 (as taught by Durbin) of the lever-load binder to the second rod of Smith (not shown but would be in the location of insert 9 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith) of the ratchet binder (disclosed by Smith and Mollick) creating a single combination device.
While, Smith is silent on whether, the lever-load-binder, when drawn with a U-arm-longitudinal-centerline and a straight-arm-longitudinal-centerline comprises an approximate pivot degree difference of approximately twelve (12) degrees of pivot difference of the U-arm-centerline and the straight-arm-centerline when the lever-handle 100 is in the closed and held position. However, the exact size of angle between the U-arm-centerline and the straight-arm centerline would have been readily been determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
Furthermore, while Smith, in view of Mollick and Durbin are silent on the length of the tube and rods being reduced in length when compared to a conventional ratchet load binder, it has been held that It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Thus, the reduction length of the tube being approximately two inches on each side of the tube for an approximate four inch redaction of the overall length of the tube, and each rod reduced approximately two inches in length would have been an obvious modification of the prior art.
With respect to claim 2, Smith discloses a connection device at the end of each rod including an eyelet 12/18, a flexible connector 13/unnumbered, and a hook 4/5 as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith.
With respect to claim 3, Mollick teaches that the means 10 for applying flexible pressure on the U-pawl 18 comprises a spring (Mollick, paragraph [0122]).
With respect to claim 4, Smith discloses that the means for attaching a connection device at the end of each rod including an eyelet 12/18, a flexible connector 13/unnumbered, and a hook 4/5 as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith.
With respect to claim 6, Smith discloses the claimed lever-and-ratchet-hybrid-load-binder except for:
the ratchet-load-binder comprising the gear rigidly attached to the tube, the gear having externally facing teeth;
the handle assembly of the ratchet-load-binder;
the pivotally attached U-shaped pawl;
it is not clear if the lever-load-binder comprises a straight-arm that pivots in and out of a handle slot and is pivotally connected to the handle; and
a U-arm-longitudinal-centerline and a straight-arm-longitudinal-centerline comprising an approximate pivot degree difference of approximately twelve(12) degrees when the lever-handle is in the closed and held position.
Smith discloses a lever-and-ratchet-hybrid-load-binder comprising:
I) a threaded-binder comprising:
a) an elongated tube 7 having an opposing open ends and internal threads, a first end having right hand internal threads and a second end having left-hand internal threads internal threads (Smith, col. 3, lines 61-68 and col. 4, lines 1-3);
b) a first rod 10 comprising right-hand external threads mating to the threads in the first end of the tube (Smith, col. 3, lines 43-44), the threads starting at a first end of the rod and extending along the rod (as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith), a second rod 10 comprising left hand external threads mating to the threads in the second end of the tube, the threads starting at a first end of the rod and extending alone the rod (not shown, but the same as the rod depicted in Fig. 2 of Smith), the first rod threading in the first end of the tube (as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith), the second rod threading in the second end of the tube (not shown, but the same as the redo depicted in Fig. 2 of Smith), the tube movable in a first-rotational-direction and the tube movable in a second-rotational direction, the first-rotational-direction of the tube moves the rods closer to each other while the rods are stationary in rotation, the second-rotational-direction of the tube moves the rods farther away from each other while the rods are stationary in rotation (Smith, col. 3, lines 65-68 and col. 4, lines 1-3), each second end of each rod having a connection device 12,13,4/18/13/5 or the ability to attach another device to the rod (as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith).
Mollick teaches a similar ratchet-load binder including
an elongated tube 38 with a gear 34 encircling the tube 38, the gear rigidly attached to the tube, the gear having externally facing teeth 35 encircling the tube a; and c) a handle assembly 4 comprising a shaft 6 and two separated sides 7/8, the sides rotatably mounted around the tube to rotate completely around the tube while straddling the gear 34, the handle assembly generally perpendicular to the tube, the handle assembly having a first side 7 positioned on one side of the gear 34 and a second side 8 positioned on the opposing side of the gear 34, the handle assembly first and second sides encircling the tube 38 (as shown in Figs. 5-6 of Mollick):
d) a pivotal attached U-shaped-pawl referred herein as a U-pawl 18 with a first tooth 26 on one end of the U-pawl and a second tooth 28 on the opposing end of the U-pawl (as shown in Fig. 6 of Mollick), the first tooth 26 for driving rotation of the tube in the first-rotational-direction and the second tooth 28 for driving the rotation of the tube in the second-rotational-direction (Mollick, paragraph [0122]–note, Mollick misidentifies the first tooth as 22 and the second tooth as 24 in this paragraph), the U- pawl teeth for engaging the gear teeth 35, the U-pawl 18 attached to the handle assembly 4 between the first side 7 and the second side 8 (as shown in Fig. 5 of Mollick), the U-pawl 18 pivoting on an axle 30 inserted at a pivot hole 32 on the U-pawl 18 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Mollick), the axle 30 being attached to the handle assembly first side 7 and the second 8 side that straddles the gear 34 (as shown in Fig. 5 of Mollick), a pivot axle 30 on the U-pawl 18 being generally centered between the first tooth 26 and the second tooth 28 of the U-pawl 18 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Mollick), the U-pawl 18 comprising;
i) a first-driving-position 18a (as shown in Fig. 6 of Mollick);
ii) a second-driving-position 18c (as shown in Fig. 9 of Mollick);
iii} a middle-neutral-position 18e (as shown in Fig. 11 of Mollick), and wherein either i) the middle-neutral-position is not securely held in position (Mollick, paragraph [0143]), or ii) the middle-neutral-position is securely held in position;
e) a means 10 for applying flexible pressure on the U-pawl 18 causing the U-pawl to be held securely in either the first-driving-position or the second-driving-position (Mollick, paragraph [0125]), the means for applying flexible pressure on the U-pawl keeping the U-pawl first tooth 26 or the second tooth 28 engaged with the gear teeth 35 during ratcheting rotation of the tube 38, the means 10 for applying flexible pressure on the U-pawl allowing flexible pivotal movement of the U-pawl first tooth 26 or the second tooth 28 around gear teeth roots and gear teeth tips for incremental back and forth movement of the handle assembly 4 and the U-pawl 18 during a ratcheting rotational movement of the tube 38 (Mollick, paragraph [0130]), wherein moving the U-pawl from the first-driving-position to the second-driving-position or vice versa requires the U~ pawl to be manually and forcefully pivoted (Mollick, paragraph [0125]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Mollick with the lever-and-ratchet-hybrid-load-binder disclosed by Smith for the advantage of the ratchet mechanism which provides a convenient device for facilitating rotation of the tube in order to extend or retract the first and second rods into the tubes.
Smith further discloses
II) a lever-load-binder comprising:
a handle 1 with a base and a grab end as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 2 of Smith:
[AltContent: textbox (base end)][AltContent: textbox (grab end)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
177
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
b) a U-arm 2 that straddles the handle 1 and is pivotally connected to the handle 1 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Smith);
c) Smith appears to disclose a straight-arm that pivots in and out of a handle slot and is pivotally connected to the handle but this is not clear.
However, Durbin teaches a lever-load-binder that includes a) a handle 21 having a base end 24 and a grab end 22 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Durbin), b) a U-arm 41 that straddles the handle 21 and is pivotally connected to the handle 21 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Durbin), c) a straight-arm 27 that pivots in an out of a handle slot 23 and is pivotally connected to the handle (as shown in Figs. 1-2 of Durbin). Durbin further teaches d) that the U-arm 41 comprises a pivot joint 44 on the end opposing the U-arm handle connection (as shown in Fig. 1 of Durbin); e) a means 46 of attaching a connection device to the U-arm pivot joint 44; and f) the lever load binder comprising i) closed and held position of the handle (as shown in Fig. 2 of Durbin), ii) a middle neutral position of the handle (not-shown, but located between the positions shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 of Durbin in which the handle 21 is pointing straight down), and iii) opening positions of the handle 21 (one of which is shown in Fig. 1 of Durbin and another of which would be with the handle 21 being pivoted a few degrees lower than the position shown in Fig. 1 of Durbin);
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Durbin with the lever-and ratchet-hybrid-load -binder disclosed by Smith for the advantage of the quick-action tightening of a chain or cable by reducing the length between hooks 33 and 45 through a single motion of handle 21.
III) In the combination, Smith teaches a means of attaching the straight-arm 27 (as taught by Durbin) of the lever-load binder to the second rod of Smith (not shown but would be in the location of insert 9 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith) of the ratchet binder (disclosed by Smith and Mollick) creating a single combination device.
While, Smith is silent on whether, the lever-load-binder, when drawn with a U-arm-longitudinal-centerline and a straight-arm-longitudinal-centerline comprises an approximate pivot degree difference of approximately six (6) degrees of pivot difference of the U-arm-centerline and the straight-arm-centerline when the lever-handle 100 is in the closed and held position. However, the exact size of angle between the U-arm-centerline and the straight-arm centerline would have been readily been determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
Furthermore, while Smith, in view of Mollick and Durbin are silent on the length of the tube and rods being reduced in length when compared to a conventional ratchet load binder, it has been held that It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Thus, the reduction length of the tube being approximately two inches on each side of the tube for an approximate four inch redaction of the overall length of the tube, and each rod reduced approximately two inches in length would have been an obvious modification of the prior art.
With respect to claim 7, Smith discloses a connection device at the end of each rod including an eyelet 12/18, a flexible connector 13/unnumbered, and a hook 4/5 as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith.
With respect to claim 8, Mollick teaches that the means 10 for applying flexible pressure on the U-pawl 18 comprises a spring (Mollick, paragraph [0122]).
With respect to claim 9, Smith discloses that the means for attaching a connection device at the end of each rod including an eyelet 12/18, a flexible connector 13/unnumbered, and a hook 4/5 as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith.
With respect to claim 11 Smith discloses the claimed lever-and-ratchet-hybrid-load-binder except for:
the ratchet-load-binder comprising the gear rigidly attached to the tube, the gear having externally facing teeth;
the handle assembly of the ratchet-load-binder;
the pivotally attached U-shaped pawl; and
it is not clear if the lever-load-binder comprises a straight-arm that pivots in and out of a handle slot and is pivotally connected to the handle.
Smith discloses a threaded load-binder combined and attached inline to a lever-load-binder, the combination creating a lever and threaded-hybrid-load-binder comprising
I) a threaded-binder comprising:
a) an elongated tube 7 having an opposing open ends and internal threads, a first end having right-hand internal threads and a second end having left-hand internal threads internal threads (Smith, col. 3, lines 61-68 and col. 4, lines 1-3)
b) a first rod 10 comprising right hand external threads mating to the threads in the first end of the tube (Smith, col. 3, lines 43-44), the threads starting at a first end of the rod and extending along the rod (as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith), a second rod 10 comprising left hand external threads mating to the threads in the second end of the tube, the threads starting at a first end of the rod and extending alone the rod (not shown, but the same as the rod depicted in Fig. 2 of Smith), the first rod threading in the first end of the tube (as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith), the second rod threading in the second end of the tube (not shown, but the same as the redo depicted in Fig. 2 of Smith), the tube movable in a first-rotational-direction and the tube movable in a second-rotational direction, the first-rotational-direction of the tube moves the rods closer to each other while the rods are stationary in rotation, the second-rotational-direction of the tube moves the rods farther away from each other while the rods are stationary in rotation (Smith, col. 3, lines 65-68 and col. 4, lines 1-3), each second end of each rod having a connection device 12,13,4/18/13/5 or the ability to attach another device to the rod (as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith).
Mollick teaches a similar ratchet-load binder including
c) an elongated tube 38 with a gear 34, the gear rigidly attached to the tube, the gear having externally facing teeth 35 encircling the tube a handle assembly 4 comprising a shaft 6 and two separated sides 7/8, the sides rotatably mounted around the tube to rotate completely around the tube while straddling the gear 34, the handle assembly generally perpendicular to the tube, the handle assembly having a first side 7 positioned on one side of the gear 34 and a second side 8 positioned on the opposing side of the gear 34, the handle assembly first and second sides encircling the tube 38 (as shown in Figs. 5-6 of Mollick):
d) a pivotal attached U-shaped-pawl referred herein as a U-pawl 18 with a first tooth 26 on one end of the U-pawl and a second tooth 28 on the opposing end of the U-pawl (as shown in Fig. 6 of Mollick), the first tooth 26 for driving rotation of the tube in the first-rotational-direction and the second tooth 28 for driving the rotation of the tube in the second-rotational-direction (Mollick, paragraph [0122]–note, Mollick misidentifies the first tooth as 22 and the second tooth as 24 in this paragraph), the U- pawl teeth for engaging the gear teeth35, the U-pawl 18 attached to the handle assembly 4 between the first side 7 and the second side 8 (as shown in Fig. 5 of Mollick), the U-pawl 18 pivoting on an axle 30 inserted at a pivot hole 32 on the U-pawl 18 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Mollick), the axle 30 being attached to the handle assembly first side 7 and the second 8 side that straddles the gear 34 (as shown in Fig. 5 of Mollick), a pivot axle 30 on the U-pawl 18 being generally centered between the first tooth 26 and the second tooth 28 of the U-pawl 18 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Mollick), the U-pawl 18 comprising;
i) a first-driving-position 18a (as shown in Fig. 6 of Mollick);
ii) a second-driving-position 18c (as shown in Fig. 9 of Mollick);
iii} a middle-neutral-position 18e (as shown in Fig. 11 of Mollick), and wherein either i) the middle-neutral-position is not securely held in position (Mollick, paragraph [0143]), or ii) the middle-neutral-position is securely held in position;
e) a means 10 for applying flexible pressure on the U-pawl 18 causing the U-pawl to be held securely in either the first-driving-position or the second-driving-position (Mollick, paragraph [0125]), the means for applying flexible pressure on the U-pawl keeping the U-pawl first tooth 26 or the second tooth 28 engaged with the gear teeth 35 during ratcheting rotation of the tube 38, the means 10 for applying flexible pressure on the U-pawl allowing flexible pivotal movement of the U-pawl first tooth 26 or the second tooth 28 around gear teeth roots and gear teeth tips for incremental back and forth movement of the handle assembly 4 and the U-pawl 18 during a ratcheting rotational movement of the tube 38 (Mollick, paragraph [0130]), wherein moving the U-pawl from the first-driving-position to the second-driving-position or vice versa requires the U~ pawl to be manually and forcefully pivoted (Mollick, paragraph [0125]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Mollick with the lever-and-ratchet-hybrid-load-binder disclosed by Smith for the advantage of the ratchet mechanism which provides a convenient device for facilitating rotation of the tube in order to extend or retract the first and second rods into the tubes.
Smith further discloses II) a lever-load-binder comprising:
a handle 1 with a base and a grab end as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 2 of Smith:
[AltContent: textbox (base end)][AltContent: textbox (grab end)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
177
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
b) a U-arm 2 that straddles the handle 1 and is pivotally connected to the handle 1 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Smith);
c) Smith appears to disclose a straight-arm that pivots in and out of a handle slot and is pivotally connected to the handle but this is not clear.
However, Durbin teaches a lever-load-binder that includes a) a handle 21 having a base end 24 and a grab end 22 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Durbin), b) a U-arm 41 that straddles the handle 21 and is pivotally connected to the handle 21 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Durbin), c) a straight-arm 27 that pivots in an out of a handle slot 23 and is pivotally connected to the handle (as shown in Figs. 1-2 of Durbin). Durbin further teaches d) that the U-arm 41 comprises a pivot joint 44 on the end opposing the U-arm handle connection (as shown in Fig. 1 of Durbin); e) a means 46 of attaching a connection device to the U-arm pivot joint 44; and f) the lever load binder comprising i) closed and held position of the handle (as shown in Fig. 2 of Durbin), ii) a middle neutral position of the handle (not-shown, but located between the positions shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 of Durbin in which the handle 21 is pointing straight down), and iii) opening positions of the handle 21 (one of which is shown in Fig. 1 of Durbin and another of which would be with the handle 21 being pivoted a few degrees lower than the position shown in Fig. 1 of Durbin);
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Durbin with the lever-and ratchet-hybrid-load -binder disclosed by Smith for the advantage of the quick-action tightening of a chain or cable by reducing the length between hooks 33 and 45 through a single motion of handle 21.
III) In the combination, Smith teaches a means of attaching the straight-arm 27 (as taught by Durbin) of the lever-load binder to the second rod of Smith (not shown but would be in the location of insert 9 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith) of the ratchet binder (disclosed by Smith and Mollick) creating a single combination device.
While Smith, in view of Mollick and Durbin are silent on the length of the tube and rods being reduced in length when compared to a conventional ratchet load binder, it has been held that It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Thus, the reduction length of the tube being approximately two inches on each side of the tube for an approximate four inch redaction of the overall length of the tube, and each rod reduced approximately two inches in length would have been an obvious modification of the prior art.
With respect to claim 12, Smith discloses a connection device at the end of each rod including an eyelet 12/18, a flexible connector 13/unnumbered, and a hook 4/5 as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith.
With respect to claim 13, Mollick teaches that the means 10 for applying flexible pressure on the U-pawl 18 comprises a spring (Mollick, paragraph [0122]).
With respect to claim 14, Smith discloses that the means for attaching a connection device at the end of each rod including an eyelet 12/18, a flexible connector 13/unnumbered, and a hook 4/5 as shown in Fig. 2 of Smith.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While claims 5, 10, and 15 recite a method of attaching the straight-arm of the lever-load binder to the second rod of the ratchet binder, such a method results in structural differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art. Spec