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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 28th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 2 and 5 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are currently amended. Applicant’s amendments to the disclosure and claims have overcome the objections to the disclosure and claims previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 27th, 2025.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter (Germany Patent Application Publication No. DE 202005020694 U1) and further in view of Span (WIPO Application Publication No. WO 2013/180665 A1) and Pintar ‘960 (Slovenia Patent No. SI 21960 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
485
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 3 from Ritter
Regarding Claim 1, Ritter, Figures 1-5 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a forestry winch 21 comprising
a rope drum 61 driven by a drive motor (cable drum drive; See Ritter, Translated Para. 0038, Ln. 4) and
an ejector roller 30 driven by an additional drive motor 41,
wherein a rope 25 is guided from the rope drum 61 to the ejector roller 30 and is guided over the ejector roller 30,
wherein the additional drive motor 41 is located on the ejector roller 30 and is connected to an energy supply device 82 by energy supply lines 96, 97
wherein the ejector roller 30 is rotatably mounted on a bearing block 65a which is pivotably mounted with a bearing journal 65b so as to pivot around a vertical axis 46 on a bearing component 65c, and
wherein the bearing journal 65b is in the form of a hollow shaft (“tubular, i.e., hollow”; See Ritter, Para. 0030, Ln. 3) and the rope 25 leading from the rope drum 61 to the ejector roller 30 is guided to the ejector roller 30 in the bearing journal 65b (See Ritter, Para. 0030, Ln. 3-4).
Ritter teaches all the elements of the forestry winch except for a protective device located on the ejector roller which the energy supply lines are located beneath and the protective device being in the form of a helmet-like cover arranged on the ejector roller and the bearing block.
Pintar ‘960, Figures 1-2, teaches a protective device 8 which covers the energy supply lines (associated hydraulic and electrical wiring; See Pintar ‘960, Translated Claims, Ln. 4) located in the area of the additional drive motor 4 and protects the energy supply lines (associated hydraulic and electrical wiring; See Pintar ‘960, Translated Claims, Ln. 4) against mechanical damage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ritter with a protective device which covers the energy supply lines and the additional drive motor, as taught by Pintar ‘960, for the purpose of protecting the components from weather impact and mechanical damage (See Pintar ‘960, Translated Abstract, Ln. 1-3).
PNG
media_image2.png
643
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 1 from Span
However, Span, Figure 1 and annotated Figure 2 above, teaches wherein provided on the ejector roller (pulley; See Span, Specification Pg. 7, Ln. 14) is a protective device 31a and
wherein the protective device 31a is in the form of a helmet-like cover arranged on the ejector roller (pulley; See Span, Specification Pg. 7, Ln. 14) and the bearing block 31b.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ritter with a helmet-like protective device, as taught by Span, for the purpose of improving device durability, reliability, and safety (i.e., protecting the winch rope and pulley from mechanical damage, preventing the rope from being caught on a foreign object which would interrupt operation, and providing a barrier between the winch operator and the rotating pulley).
Although the placement of the energy supply lines of Ritter are only shown relative to the additional drive motor in a circuit diagram (See Ritter, Fig. 5), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the energy supply lines would need to be physically connected to the additional drive motor in order for it to be operable. In the case that the helmet-like cover of Span is applied to Ritter, it is implied that the physical connection between the energy supply lines and the additional drive motor would likely necessitate locating at least a part of the energy supply lines located in the area of the additional drive motor beneath the helmet-like cover.
Regarding claim 4, Ritter in view of Span and Pintar ‘960 are advanced above.
Ritter further teaches wherein the rope 25 is pressed against the ejector roller 30 by a pressing device (pressing devices; See Ritter, Para. 0031, Ln. 3).
Ritter in view of Span and Pintar ‘960 teach all the elements of the forestry winch except for wherein the pressing device is located underneath the helmet-like cover.
However, Ritter teaches pressing devices comprising pivot arms 68.1, 68.2 which are connected to housing 66 (See Ritter, Para. 0031-0033).
Although Ritter teaches the pressing devices being connected to the housing but not specifically underneath the housing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the coverage of the housing to include the pressing devices for the purpose of increasing device durability (i.e., protecting the pressing device from external elements).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter (Germany Patent Application Publication No. DE 202005020694 U1) in view of Span (WIPO Application Publication No. WO 2013/180665 A1) and Pintar ‘960 (Slovenia Patent No. SI 21960 A), as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-5 above, and further in view of Rusiniak (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0061626).
Regarding claim 3, Ritter in view of Span and Pintar ‘960 are advanced above.
Ritter in view of Span and Pintar ‘960 teach all the elements of the forestry winch except for wherein the cover is in the form of a metal cover.
However, Rusiniak teaches wherein the helmet-like cover 2 is in the form of a metal cover (“steel, aluminum, or any other material that offers the required strength and endurance”; See Ritter, Para. 0052, Ln. 12-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ritter in view of Span and Pintar ‘960 with a metal cover, as taught by Rusiniak, for the purpose of supporting and protectively housing the components of the winch (See Rusiniak, Para. 0052, Ln. 15-16).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter (Germany Patent Application Publication No. DE 202005020694 U1) in view of Span (WIPO Application Publication No. WO 2013/180665 A1) and Pintar ‘960 (Slovenia Patent No. SI 21960 A), as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-5 above, and further in view of Pintar ‘535 (European Patent Application Publication No. EP 2314535 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ritter in view of Span and Pintar ‘960 are advanced above.
Ritter in view of Span and Pintar ‘960 teach all the elements of the forestry winch except for the energy supply lines for the additional drive motor being located in the bearing journal.
However, Pintar ‘535, Figures 1-2, teaches wherein the energy supply lines 15, 16 located in the bearing journal 7 lead to the additional drive motor 2 located on the ejector roller 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ritter in view of Span and Pintar ‘960 with the energy supply lines located in the bearing journal, as taught by Pintar ‘535, for the purpose of enabling unbounded left to right pivoting of the ejector roller on the bearing journal (See Pintar ‘535, Para. 0002, Ln. 1-6).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter (Germany Patent Application Publication No. DE 202005020694 U1) in view of Span (WIPO Application Publication No. WO 2013/180665 A1), Pintar ‘960 (Slovenia Patent No. SI 21960 A), and Pintar ‘535 (European Patent Application Publication No. EP 2314535 A1), as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-6 above, and as evidenced by Pintar et al. ‘666 (Slovenia Patent No. SI 22666 A) hereinafter Pintar ‘666.
Regarding claim 7, Ritter in view of Span, Pintar ‘960, and Pintar ‘535 are advanced above.
PNG
media_image3.png
242
283
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 2 from Pintar '960
Pintar ‘960, annotated Figure 2 above, teaches wherein the bearing journal 10 is provided with a partition 11 that separates the hollow shaft 100 into a first compartment 101 and a second compartment 102, and wherein the energy supply lines (associated hydraulic and electrical wiring; See Pintar ‘960, Translated Claims, Ln. 4) leading to the additional drive motor 400 are located in the second compartment 102.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ritter in view of Span and Pintar ‘535 with a hollow shaft having two compartments separated by a partition, as taught by Pintar ‘960, for the purpose of protecting the components from weather impact and mechanical damage (See Pintar ‘960, Translated Abstract, Ln. 1-3).
PNG
media_image4.png
418
701
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 2 from Pintar '960 (left) and annotated Figure 1 from Pintar '666 (right)
The teaching of Pintar ‘960 includes a structure providing a hollow shaft having two compartments separated by a partition. However, no figure of Pintar ‘960 shows the invention in a use condition to demonstrate the location of the rope. Pintar ‘666 has a substantially similar structure to Pintar ‘960 and is used as an evidentiary reference to demonstrate how the structure in Pintar ‘960 would be oriented relative to the rope in a use condition.
As evidenced by Pintar ‘666, annotated Figure 3 above, the structure described in Pintar ‘960 accommodates the rope 401 which leads to the ejector roller 12 and is located in the first compartment 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 5-10, filed July 28th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objections to the Drawings and Claims, Applicant has submitted acceptable amendments. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant has amended the claim. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously set forth rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection has been set forth under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the amended claim.
Applicant asserts “Independent claim 1 now defines a forestry winch that has a bearing block (60), on which the ejector roller (26) is rotatably mounted, and a helmet-like cover (81) that is placed on both the ejector roller (26) and the bearing block (60) to cover and protect the energy supply lines (28) located in the area of the additional drive motor (25), which is located on the ejector roller (26). Examples of this can be seen best in Figs. 4 and 5 of the present application. Essentially, amended independent claim 1 defines the bearing bock (60) and helmet-like cover (81) as two separate elements.”
Applicant argues “The casing (31) of Span is “fixedly mounted in the upper area of the winch frame and is furnished with a pulley, which is allowed to rotate around its horizontal geometric axis 30”. Span at p. 7. When viewing Fig. 1 of Span in light of this disclosure, it becomes clear that the casing (31) also serves as the bearing block in the disclosed assembly. This means that if the casing (31) of Span was to be combined with the cable guide device (20) of Ritter, such a combination would not arrive at helmet-like cover that is placed on both an ejector roller and bearing block as recited in amended independent claim 1. One having ordinary skill in the art would also not be motivated to cover the cable guide device (20) of Ritter with the casing (31) of Span because the casing-bearing combination of the casing (31) would interfere with the arrangement between the cable guide device (20) and the bearing (65) on which it is already arranged.”
In response to applicant’s argument that the combination of Ritter and Span would not result in a helmet-like cover that is placed on both an ejector roller and bearing block due to differences in component arrangement between the claimed invention and Span, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Ritter is relied upon to teach the arrangement of the ejector roller on the bearing block, while Span is relied upon to teach the ejector roller being protected by a helmet-like cover (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above). It is not necessary that the exact arrangement of all the components in the claimed invention be replicated in Span in order to suggest that a helmet-like cover similar to that of Span be used with the device disclosed in Ritter.
Applicant further argues “Additionally, the cited prior art fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed arrangement of energy supply lines in an area of an additional drive motor. To allegedly disclose this arrangement, the Office Action cites to Pintar ‘960, which discloses a hydraulic pump (4) and states that the supporting pillar (1) can protect the hydraulic pump (4) and associated hydraulic and electrical wiring. However, the hydraulic pump (4) is not a motor that drives the operation of different features within the winch of Pintar ’960, like the claimed additional drive motor.”
In response to applicant’s argument that the hydraulic pump disclosed in Pintar ‘960 is not a motor that drives the operation of different features within the winch, like the claimed additional drive motor, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Additionally, Ritter discloses a hydraulic machine which can be used as a hydraulic motor or a hydraulic pump (See Ritter, Para. 0006). Thus, the combined teachings of the hydraulic machine of Ritter and the hydraulic pump of Pintar ‘960 would suggest that the hydraulic pump of Pintar ‘960 could be used as a motor to drive the operation of different features within the winch.
Applicant further argues “Pintar ’960 is directed to a tractor-mounted forestry winch, in which the hydraulic pump (4) and any associated wiring are mounted inside of the pillar (1) under a perforated mesh (8). See, e.g., Pintar ’960 at Figs. 1 and 2. Even if the hydraulic pump (4) could be equated to the claimed additional drive motor, Pintar °960 fails to suggest any arrangement that results in the hydraulic pump (4) and associated wiring being located below a helmet-like cover arranged on an ejector roller and bearing block as recited in amended independent claim 1. Ritter also fails to disclose such an arrangement. The Office Action also cites to the hydraulic motor (41) to assert that an additional drive motor is known. However, as can be seen by comparing Figs. 4 and 5 of Ritter, it 1s clear that the hydraulic motor (41) is arranged adjacent to and concentrically with the pulley (30). This means that the hydraulic motor (41) is located above the bearing (65), not below it as required by amended independent claim 1. If the disclosures of Pintar ’960 were to be combined with Ritter, it would simply result in the hydraulic motor (41) and related features being protected by the mesh (8) of Pintar ’960. It would not result in the arrangement defined in amended independent claim 1.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., a “hydraulic motor located below the bearing”) is not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The claimed invention requires the additional drive motor 25 is located on the ejector roller 26, which would result in the additional drive motor being located above the bearing (See Drawings provided with present application, Fig. 2-3), not below it as asserted in applicant’s arguments.
In response to applicant’s argument that both Pintar ‘960 and Ritter fail to suggest any arrangement that results in the additional drive motor and associated wiring being located below a helmet-like cover arranged on an ejector roller and bearing block, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Span is relied upon to teach the helmet-like cover arranged on the ejector roller, while Pintar ‘960 is relied upon to teach the additional drive motor and energy lines being protected by a cover (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above). Although the placement of the energy supply lines of Ritter are only shown relative to the additional drive motor in a circuit diagram (See Ritter, Fig. 5), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the energy supply lines would need to be physically connected to the additional drive motor in order for it to be operable. In the case that the helmet-like cover of Span is applied to Ritter, it is implied that the physical connection between the energy supply lines and the additional drive motor would likely necessitate locating at least a part of the energy supply lines located in the area of the additional drive motor beneath the helmet-like cover.
Regarding the rejections of claims 3-4 and 6-7, the claims are dependents of rejected claim 1 and Applicant has provided no additional arguments. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
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).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIFFANY DOMONIQUE JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7:30pm ET.
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 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.
/T.D.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619