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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 3 has not been further treated on the merits. Although the reference to claim 1 AND claim 2 are after comprising, it is believed Applicant intends to reference both previous claims thus making the claim multiple dependent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2.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 1-3 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 is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus, and is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) (See MPEP 2173.05(p)). The preamble states an assembly but step b is directed to a method
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, which is an assembly claim. Dependent claim 2 introduces method steps, thus, claim 2 is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus, and is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) (See MPEP 2173.05(p)).
Claim 2 is a method step however fails to recite steps.
Claim 3 recites method of claim 1 and axel according to claim 2 then swapping parts and methods which has rendered the claim indefinite.
Claims 1-3 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 1 step b is indefinite as the preamble of the method claim is not part of the device and it is unclear which device limitations from the preamble should be read into the method steps. Moreover the claim is directed to ratchet lashing strap assembly not the method steps contained therein- it is indefinite whether Applicant intended to claim a device or method and which portions are meant to be positively claimed. For the purpose of examination claim 1 is examined as device claim which could be used functionally as written, however the methods are not part of the device claim.
Claim 1 step c is indefinite as “can be” renders the metes and bound unclear, are these limitations required?
Claim 2 steps a-c are indefinite as “can be” renders the metes and bounds unclear, are these limitations required?
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 is a mashup of claims 1 and 2 without adding any new limitations thus rendering it an improper dependent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bollingtoft (WO 2016141944 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bollingtoft discloses “. A Ratchet Lashing Strap assembly comprising. a. Lashing strap (30; Fig. 3) for wrapping around goods to be secured b. A method of operating a rachet strap tightener using a power driven rotary tool, the rachet strap tightener comprising a tightener body (1 and 2 as seen in Annotated Fig. 1), a spindle rotatably supported about a spindle axis relative to the tightener body for winding a first strap thereon in first direction (3; Annotated Fig. 1), a first mating part rotatable with the spindle relative to the tightener body (7; Annotated Fig. 1) and a ratcheting mechanism arranged to selectively restrict rotation of the spindle relative to the tightener body in an opposing second direction (9; Annotated Fig. 1), the power driven rotary tool comprising a tool body, a second mating part arranged to mate with the first mating part of the rachet strap tightener and arranged to be driven to rotate about a drive axis (8; Annotated Fig. 1), the method comprising i. anchoring the tool body relative to the tightener body (Page 2, Lines 18-26), ii. mating the second mating part of the rotary driven tool with the first mating part of the rachet strap tightener (Page 2, Lines 18-26); and iii. driving the second mating part of the rotary driven tool to rotate the spindle of the rachet strap tightener (Page 2, Line 32; Page 3, Lines 1-2). c. The axel of the Ratcheted Lashing Strap can be removed and replaced by another axel with the same diameter and the same securing features securing the axel to the frame and ratcheting mechanics.”
Regarding the limitation, c, in claim 1, Bollingtoft discloses a ratcheting load-strapping device with multiple embodiments containing various spindle designs, so this feature is taught by the cited prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
734
1062
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bollingtoft (WO 2016141944 A1)..
With respect to claim 2, Bollingtoft discloses “The method according to Claim 1 with the Axel being formed in steel and with a V shaped (3; Fig. 3) … cut enabling the securing of the strap onto the axel such that. a. The strap can be secured on the axel anywhere on the length of the strap (Page 2, Lines 5-7). b. By placing the strap into the V-shape and initiate 2 turns of the axel the strap is secured and can be tightened to the full load capacity of the strap (Page 2, Lines 31-32; Page 3, Lines 1-2). c. After the release of the Rachet the strap is loose and can be removed from the V-shaped axel without having to pull the end of the strap through an opening in the axel (Page 2, Lines 5-7).”
Bollingtoft does not disclose that the V shaped cut is to be 120°.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which 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.
Therefore, 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 to construct the spindle with a V shaped cut of 120° with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been 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” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, the spindle of Bollingtoft would not operate differently with the spindle with a V shaped cut of 120°.
PNG
media_image2.png
592
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Shanks (GB 2475684 A) teaches a spindle with a V shaped cut, however it does not disclose the tightening body.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ROBERT DIGIOVANNANTONIO whose telephone number is (571)272-4526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 a.m. to 5 p.m..
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/D.R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612