Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/232,911

Wire Rope Hoist With Swivel Sheave

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Aug 11, 2023
Examiner
ADAMS, NATHANIEL L
Art Unit
3654
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Columbus Mckinnon Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
369 granted / 514 resolved
+19.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
560
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
§102
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
§112
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 514 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 Claim 12 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 12 (see sixth to last line) recites “the second sheave,” 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. Claims 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,270,982 (hereinafter “Prange”) in view of KR 20160087594 A (hereinafter “Park”), and US 2009/0072209 A1 (hereinafter “Smith”). Regarding claim 1 Prange teaches a wire rope hoist assembly for raising and lowering a load, the wire rope hoist system, comprising: a rotating drum (A)…, the rotating drum (A) having a longitudinal axis; a frame (40) supporting the rotating drum (A); a shaft (41) operatively associated with the rotating drum (A); a motor (K) configured to engage with and rotate the shaft (41); a hoisting rope (F) affixed to the drum (A) and configured to wind into and unwind from the drum (A); a rope guide (E) configured to mount around the rotating drum (A), the rope guide (E) configured to move laterally relative to the rotating drum (A) to keep the hoisting rope orderly when winding the hoisting rope (F) onto the drum or unwinding it from the drum; at least one threaded shaft (16) disposed substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the rotating drum (A), the at least one threaded shaft (16) configured to rotate relative to the frame (40); at least one first sheave (27) mounted on a member (20) having a threaded opening (21/22) configured to receive the threaded shaft (16), the member (20) being prevented from rotation (i.e. by 17) such that rotation of the at least one threaded shaft (16) causes linear motion of the member (20) in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the rotating drum (A); a support structure (H) extending (at least indirectly) from the frame (40) in spaced apart relation to the rotating drum (A); a second sheave (J) mounted on the support structure (H) and configured such that the second sheave (J) rotates about a first axis [ ]; wherein the wire rope hoist assembly is configured such that the hoist rope (F) passes through the rope guide (E) and engages with the first sheave (27) and then engages with the second sheave (J); wherein a hook (i.e. “drag bucket) for raising and lowering the load is connected to the hoist rope (F) and is disposed on a side of the second sheave (J) opposite from the rotating drum (A). Prange fails to teach a spiral groove in the drum. Park teaches a rotating drum (110) supported by a frame (101/103), a first pulley (151), and a second pulley (113) driven by the first pulley (151) via a belt (153). Park further teaches the drum (110) having a spiral rope groove (118) defined therein; the rope guide (130/133/etc.) configured to move longitudinally relative to the rotating drum (110) to keep the hoisting rope (40) in the spiral rope groove (118). 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 spiral groove to the drum of Prange, as taught by Park, 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 keep the line in order. Prange fails to teach the second sheave pivots about a second axis different from the first axis. Smith teaches a sheave (15) for guiding a line, wherein the sheave (15) can rotate about a first axis (paragraph 29). Smith further teaches wherein the sheave (15) can also pivot about a second axis different than the first axis (i.e. element 14 rotates, see paragraph 27). 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 second pivoting axis of Smith to the sheave of Prange with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to vary the fleet angle at which Prange can accept line without causing undo abrasion of the line, or jumping out of the sheave groove. Regarding claim 2 modified Prange teaches the above assembly. Prange fails to teach two separate threaded shafts. Park teaches wherein the at least one threaded shaft (140) comprises a pair of threaded shafts (140) disposed in spaced apart relation and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the rotating drum (110; e.g. see figure 2). 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 threaded shaft of Prange, as taught by Park, 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 more stability to the pulley carriage, and decrease the loading on each individual threaded rod. Regarding claim 3 modified Prange teaches the above assembly, and further teaches wherein the at least one first sheave (27) comprises a sheave set (27). Regarding claim 4 modified Prange teaches the above assembly, and further teaches wherein the sheave set (27) comprises a pair of sheaves (27) connected to the member (20). Regarding claim 5 modified Prange teaches the above assembly (as per claim 1), and further teaches wherein the motor (K) is powered by a cordless power source (i.e. Prange has an engine; see column 2 lines 28-31). Regarding claim 12, Prange teaches wire rope hoist assembly for raising and lowering a load, the wire rope hoist system, comprising (italicized words showing variance from claim 12): a rotating drum (A) having a drum surface defined therein, the rotating drum (A) having a longitudinal axis; a frame (40) supporting the rotating drum (A); a shaft (41) operatively associated with the rotating drum (A); a motor (K) configured to engage with and rotate the shaft (41); a hoisting rope (F) affixed to the drum and configured to wind into and unwind from the drum surface; a rope guide (E) configured to mount around the rotating drum (A), the rope guide (E) configured to move laterally relative to the rotating drum (A) to keep the hoisting rope (F) in the drum surface when winding the hoisting rope (F) into the drum surface or unwinding it from the drum surface; a first threaded shaft (16) supported on the frame (40) and configured to rotate relative to the frame (40); a first chain sprocket (CS1, see annotated figure 7 below) associated with the shaft (41); PNG media_image1.png 240 448 media_image1.png Greyscale a second chain sprocket (CS2, see annotated figure 5 below) driven by the first chain sprocket via a chain (34), the second chain sprocket (CS2) operatively associated with (i.e. in driving relationship with) a first gear (G1), PNG media_image2.png 443 815 media_image2.png Greyscale a second gear (33) connected to the first threaded shaft (16) and configured to engage with the first gear (G1); wherein the threaded shaft (16) is coupled such that rotation of the shaft on the rotating drum (A) causes the threaded shaft (16) to rotate; a first threaded member (20) disposed on the first threaded shaft (16) a sheave set (27) connected to the first threaded member (20) and second threaded member (20) such that rotation of the first and second threaded shafts (16) with the first and second threaded members (20) prevented from rotating causes linear motion of the sheave set along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the rotating drum (A); a support structure (H) extending from the frame (40) in spaced apart relation to the rotating drum (A); a swivel sheave (J) mounted on the support structure (H) and configured such that the [swivel] sheave (J) rotates about a first axis [ ]; wherein the assembly is configured such that the hoisting rope (F) passes through the rope guide (E) and engages with the sheave set (27) and then engages with the swivel sheave (J); wherein a hook (i.e. “drag bucket) for raising and lowering the load is connected to the hoist rope (F) and is disposed on a side of the swivel sheave (J) opposite from the rotating drum (A). Prange fails to teach a spiral groove in the drum. Park teaches the winch drum and guide with pulleys as above (see claim 8). Park further teaches the drum (110) having a spiral rope groove (118) defined therein; the rope guide (130/133/etc.) configured to move longitudinally relative to the rotating drum (110) to keep the hoisting rope (40) in the spiral rope groove (118). 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 spiral groove to the drum of Prange, as taught by Park, 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 keep the line in order. Prange fails to teach two separate threaded shafts, or the transmission thereof as set forth in claim 12. Park teaches: a first threaded shaft (140) supported on the frame (101/103) and configured to rotate relative to the frame (101/103); a second threaded shaft (140) supported on the frame (101/103) and configured to rotate relative to the frame (101/103); a first pulley (151) operatively associated with (i.e. in driving relationship with) the shaft (112); a second pulley (113) driven by the first pulley (151) via a belt (153), the second pulley (113) operatively associated (in driving relationship with) with a first gear (141); a second gear (142) connected to the first threaded shaft (140) and configured to engage (at least indirectly) with the first gear (141); a third gear (142) connected to the second threaded shaft (140) and configured to engage (at least indirectly) with the first gear (141); wherein the first and second threaded shafts (140) are mechanically coupled such that rotation of the shaft (112) on the rotating drum (110) causes the first threaded shaft (140) and the second threaded shaft (140) to rotate (i.e. when belt 153 is driven at 151 all three rotate simultaneously). 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 threaded shaft of Prange, as taught by Park, and use the belt-driven transmission as taught by Park, 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 more stability to the pulley carriage, and decrease the loading on each individual threaded rod. Prange fails to teach the second sheave pivots about a second axis different from the first axis. Smith teaches a sheave (15) for guiding a line, wherein the sheave (15) can rotate about a first axis (paragraph 29). Smith further teaches wherein the sheave (15) can also pivot about a second axis different than the first axis (i.e. element 14 rotates, see paragraph 27). 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 second pivoting axis of Smith to the sheave of Prange with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to vary the fleet angle at which Prange can accept line without causing undo abrasion of the line, or jumping out of the sheave groove. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prange in view of Park and Smith, and in further view of US 2018/0179032 (hereinafter “Hall”). Regarding claim 6 modified Prange teaches the above assembly (as per claim 5). Prange teaches a cordless system, but fails to teach wherein the cordless power source is selected from the group consisting of lithium ion, lithium polymer, nickel-metal hydride, nickel cadmium, and lead-acid batteries. Hall teaches a cordless power system for a winch. Hall further teaches a lithium-ion battery (752) for powering the motor of the winch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the engine of Prange for the battery of Hall with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to avoid loud engine sounds and exhaust. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prange in view of Park and Smith, and in further view of US 2011/0042634 (hereinafter “Boychuk”). Regarding claim 7 modified Prange teaches the above assembly (as per claim 5). Prange teaches a cordless system, but fails to teach an ultracapacitor as per claim 7. Boychuk teaches a winching system for imparting force to a load line. Boychuck further teaches a power source comprises an ultracapacitor (see paragraph 41 and claim 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to switch the power source of Prange for the ultracapacitor of Boychuck with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to avoid loud engine sounds and exhaust. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 11, 2023
Application Filed
May 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 12, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569899
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR GUIDING METAL STRIPS, COMPRISING GRINDING BODIES WITH SUPPORT ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570099
SUBSTRATE ALIGNMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565405
Modular and Collapsible Server Lift Assist for Immersion Cooling System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12552646
WILDERNESS LIFTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12545557
WIND TURBINE LIFTING ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+20.3%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 514 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month