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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the rope guide must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 1-18 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 lines 9 and 10 recite (respectively) “the first side wall” and “the second side wall.” This recitation lacks proper antecedent basis because there are two first side walls and two second side walls set forth previous to this recitations (i.e. one for each sheave assembly). It is suggested to reference the walls by which sheave assembly they are on, as in (e.g.) “the first side wall of the second sheave assembly.” This is consistent with other claim language which is not indefinite.
Claim 7 (see lines 20-21) recites similar language, and is indefinite for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 13 (see line 19) recites similar language, and is indefinite for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 1 (line 11) recites “the first and second end walls,” which has unclear antecedent basis. That is, there are multiple first/second end walls set forth previous to this limitation. To which does this recitation have reference?
Claim 7 (see line 22) recites similar language, and is indefinite for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 13 (see line 20) recites similar language, and is indefinite for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 1 fails to end with a period punctuation mark. Where does claim 1 end?
Claim 2 (line 3) recites “the second end wall,” which has unclear antecedent basis. That is, there are multiple second end walls set forth previous to this limitation. To which does this recitation have reference?
Claim 5 fails to end with a period punctuation mark. Where does claim 5 end?
Claim 7 line 11 recites “it,” which is vague and ambiguous. To which component does this limitation have reference?
Claim 8 (line 3) recites “the second end wall,” which has unclear antecedent basis. That is, there are multiple second end walls set forth previous to this limitation. To which does this recitation have reference?
Claim 13 line 11 recites “it,” which is vague and ambiguous. To which component does this limitation have reference?
Claim 14 (line 3) recites “the second end wall,” which has unclear antecedent basis. That is, there are multiple second end walls set forth previous to this limitation. To which does this recitation have reference?
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 2728668 B1 (hereinafter “Walerowski”).
Regarding claim 1 Walerowski (see embodiment of figures 5-8) discloses a hook block assembly (fig. 5), comprising:
first and second sheave assemblies (3) [each] having a first side wall (3b) disposed in spaced apart relation to a second side wall (3b), the first and second sheave assemblies (3) [each] having a first end wall (E; see annotated figure below) disposed in spaced apart relation to a second end wall (E), the first side wall (3b) having one or more first sheaves (5) disposed thereon, the second side wall (3b) having one or more second sheaves (5) disposed thereon, the first and second end walls (E) having first openings (i.e. for element 4; see figs. 7-8) disposed in substantial alignment;
PNG
media_image1.png
363
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a crosshead (4) having a central portion configured to support a hook (1) therefrom, the crosshead (4) having a first stud (4) extending in a first direction and a second stud (4) extending in a second direction opposite the first direction, the first and second studs (4) sized to fit inside the aligned openings (i.e. openings for element 4; see figs. 7-8) in the first and second end walls (E) in the first and second sheave assemblies (3);
one or more spacers (7a) configured to be mounted on one of the first and second studs (4) such that the position of the first and second sheave assemblies on the crosshead (4) can be adjusted (see positions in figures 5 and 6) [.]
Regarding claim 2 Walerowski discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein the second end wall (E) on the first sheave assembly (3) has a curved opening disposed therein, the curved opening (CO; see annotated fig. below) extending inward from a top edge of the second end wall (E).
PNG
media_image2.png
516
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3 Walerowski discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein the first end wall (E) on the first sheave assembly (3) has a second opening disposed therein (O2, above).
Regarding claim 4 Walerowski discloses the above assembly, and further discloses wherein the first end wall (E) on the second sheave assembly (3) has a second opening (O2, above) disposed therein.
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 7-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0081152 A1 (hereinafter “Kosuga”) in view of Walerowski.
Regarding claims 7 and 13 Kosuga teaches a wire rope hoist system for raising and lowering a load, the wire rope hoist system, comprising:
a rotating drum (31) having a spiral rope groove (311) defined therein;
a shaft operatively associated with the rotating drum (31);
a motor configured to engage with and rotate the shaft;
a hoisting rope affixed (via winding) to the drum (31) and configured to wind into and unwind from the spiral rope groove (311), one end of the hoisting rope attached (at least indirectly) to a fixed end point (of the hook block) on a side of a hook block assembly (fig. 16) opposite from the drum (31);
a rope guide (32) configured to mount around the rotating drum (31), the rope guide (32) configured to move laterally relative to the rotating drum (31) to keep the hoisting rope in the spiral rope groove (311) when winding the hoisting rope into the rope groove or unwinding it from the rope groove.
Kosuga further teaches:
the hook block assembly (fig. 16) having first and second sheave assemblies (74; see, e.g. fig. 18) [each] having first and second side walls (74a/74b) disposed in spaced apart relation to each other, the side walls (74a/74b) having one or more first sheaves (71) disposed thereon, the hook block assembly (fig. 16) having a crosshead (72) having a central portion configured to support a hook (76c) therefrom, the crosshead (72) having first and second studs (72b) extending in [respective] first and second opposite directions, the first and second studs (72) sized to fit inside the aligned openings (74a1/74b1) in the first and second [side walls (74a/74b)].
Kosuga fails to teach the other particulars of the hook block assembly, such as aligned openings in the end walls, spacers, etc.
As noted above, Walerowski teaches the particulars of the hook block assembly. 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 moveable sheave assemblies of Walerowski to the hoisting system of Kosuga 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 for use with either small, or extremely large flanges (see Walerowski paragraph 2).
Regarding claims 8 and 14 modified Kosuga teaches the above system, and further teaches wherein the second end wall (Walerowski E, above) on the first sheave assembly (Walerowski 3) has a curved opening (Walerowski CO, see annotated figure below) disposed therein, the curved opening (V CO) extending inward from a top edge of the second end wall (E).
PNG
media_image3.png
516
727
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 9 and 15 modified Kosuga teaches the above system, and further teaches wherein the first end wall (Walerowski E) on the first sheave assembly (Walerowski 3) has a second opening (Walerowski O2, above) disposed therein.
Regarding claims 10 and 16 modified Kosuga teaches the above system, and further teaches wherein the first end wall (Walerowski E) on the second sheave assembly (Walerowski 3) has a second opening (Walerowski SO, above) disposed therein (i.e. both sheave assemblies are the same).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 11-12, and 17-18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such references show various forms of apparatus which comprise at least one similar feature to the present application.
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.
/NATHANIEL L ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654