CTFR 18/291,930 CTFR 97513 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa (JP2013049543A) in view of Ball (US0670756A) . Regarding claim 1, Hayakawa discloses a sheave (1) for a lift, comprising: a base member (BM; see Hayakawa annotated Figure 2 below) having a cylindrical shape; a winding member (WM) that is coaxial with the base member (BM) and has a cylindrical shape with a diameter larger than a diameter of the base member (BM); and a plurality of intermediate members (IM) provided between the base member (BM) and the winding member (WM) in a radial direction of the winding member (WM), wherein each of the plurality of intermediate members (IM) includes: a first end portion (1EP) connected to the base member (BM); a second end portion (2EP) connected to the winding member (WM); a third end portion (3EP) connected to the winding member (WM) at a position different from a position at which the second end portion (2EP) is connected to the winding member (WM) in a circumferential direction of the winding member (WM); and a branch portion (BP) formed between the first end portion (1EP) and each of the second end portion (2EP) and the third end portion (3EP), wherein a wall thickness of the winding member (WM) in the radial direction and a wall thickness of the base member (BM) in the radial direction are similar, but fails to teach wherein the base member, the winding member, and the plurality of intermediate members are formed integrally by casting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sheave of Hayakawa to include wherein a wall thickness of the winding member in the radial direction and a wall thickness of the base member in the radial direction are the same in order to improve the strength and rigidity of the members to prevent bending and warping and maintain cylindricity of the sheave, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. PNG media_image1.png 374 517 media_image1.png Greyscale Hayakawa, Annotated Figure 2 Ball teaches a similar sheave and further teaches wherein the base member (1; Figure 1), the winding member (3), and the plurality of intermediate members (2) are formed integrally by casting (lines 39-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sheave of Hayakawa to include casting as taught by Ball in order to provide a uniformed shape to minimize machining and reduce the cost for producing complex shapes. Regarding claim 3, Hayakawa discloses wherein the plurality of intermediate members (IM) include a first intermediate member (1IM; see Hayakawa annotated Figure 2 above) and a second intermediate member (2IM) that are adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction, wherein the second end portion (2EP) of the first intermediate member (1IM) and the third end portion (3EP) of the second intermediate member (2IM) are adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction, and wherein a distance between the second end portion (2EP) of the first intermediate member (1IM) and the third end portion (3EP) of the first intermediate member (1IM) in the circumferential direction and a distance between the second end portion (2EP) of the first intermediate member (1IM) and the third end portion (3EP) of the second intermediate member (2IM) in the circumferential direction are the same . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa, in view of Ball, and in further view of Zahniser (US1143012A) . Regarding claim 4, modified Hayakawa discloses the above sheave and further teaches wherein the plurality of intermediate members (IM) include a first intermediate member (1IM) and a second intermediate member (2IM) that are adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction, but fails to teach wherein each of a distance between the second end portion of the first intermediate member and the third end portion of the first intermediate member in the circumferential direction, a distance between the second end portion of the first intermediate member and the third end portion of the second intermediate member in the circumferential direction, a distance between the first end portion of the first intermediate member and the first end portion of the second intermediate member in the circumferential direction, and a distance between the branch portion of the first intermediate member and the winding member in the radial direction is 0.3 time or more a thickness of the winding member in an axial direction of the winding member. Zahniser teaches a similar sheave and further teaches wherein each of a distance between the second end portion (2EP; see Zahniser annotated Figure 3 below) of the first intermediate member (1IM) and the third end portion (3EP) of the first intermediate member (1IM) in the circumferential direction, a distance between the second end portion (2EP) of the first intermediate member (1IM) and the third end portion (3EP) of the second intermediate member (2EP) in the circumferential direction, a distance between the first end portion (1EP) of the first intermediate member (1IM) and the first end portion (1EP) of the second intermediate member (2IM) in the circumferential direction, and a distance between the branch portion (BP) of the first intermediate member (1IM) and the winding member (12, 17, 18) in the radial direction is 0.3 time or more (at least more than 0.5 times) a thickness of the winding member (12, 17, 18) in an axial direction of the winding member (12, 17, 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sheave of Hayakawa to include the intermediate members as taught by Zahniser in order to improve the strength and rigidity of the intermediate members to prevent bending and warping of the winding member, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. PNG media_image2.png 361 504 media_image2.png Greyscale Zahniser, Annotated Figure 3 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahniser in view of Martindale (US0266707A) . Regarding claim 5, Zahniser discloses a sheave (3; Figures 3-4) for a lift, comprising: a base member (4) having a cylindrical shape; a winding member (12, 17, 18) that is coaxial with the base member (4) and has a cylindrical shape with a diameter larger than a diameter of the base member (4); and a plurality of intermediate members (5) provided between the base member (4) and the winding member (12, 17, 18) in a radial direction of the winding member (12, 17, 18), wherein each of the plurality of intermediate members (5) includes: a first end portion (1EP; see Zahniser annotated Figure 3 below) connected to the base member (4); a second end portion (2EP) connected to the winding member (12, 17, 18); a third end portion (3EP) connected to the winding member (12, 17, 18) at a position different from a position at which the second end portion (2EP) is connected to the winding member (12, 17, 18) in a circumferential direction of the winding member (12, 17, 18); and a branch portion (BP) formed between the first end portion (1EP) and each of the second end portion (2EP) and the third end portion (3EP), but fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of intermediate members, the base member, and the winding member are formed as bodies that are separate from each other by casting. PNG media_image2.png 361 504 media_image2.png Greyscale Zahniser, Annotated Figure 3 Martindale teaches a similar sheave and further teaches wherein each of the plurality of intermediate members (C’; Figure 3), the base member (B; B’), and the winding member (D) are formed as bodies that are separate from each other by casting (lines 30-43 and 64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sheave of Zahniser to include the separate casting bodies as taught by Martindale in order to provide a uniformed shape to minimize machining, reduce manufacturing cost, and allow for part replacements instead of replacing the entire sheave. Regarding claim 6, Zahniser discloses wherein the winding member (12, 17, 18) is made of a material that is different from a material of the base member (4) and a material of the plurality of intermediate members (5; page 1, lines 46-97, winding member 12 is made of wood and the base member 4 and intermediate members 5 are made of steel). Regarding claim 7, Zahniser discloses wherein the winding member (12, 17, 18) is divided into a plurality of divided parts in the circumferential direction (Figure 3, member 12 is divided in 8 parts), and wherein each of the plurality of divided parts is coupled to at least one of the plurality of intermediate members (5) with use of a bolt (Figure 3; page 1, lines 90-97, bolts or screws) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5 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. Regarding claim 1, in page 6 and first two paragraphs of page 7, the applicant argued that the disclosures of Hayakawa and Zahniser fail to teach wherein a wall thickness of the winding member in the radial direction and a wall thickness of the base member in the radial direction are the same, and wherein the base member, the winding member, and the plurality of intermediate members are formed integrally by casting, and further argued that the disclosure of Hayakawa does not discuss dimensions and are not to scale. The examiner agrees that Zahniser fails to teach wherein a wall thickness of the winding member in the radial direction and a wall thickness of the base member in the radial direction are the same, and wherein the base member, the winding member, and the plurality of intermediate members are formed integrally by casting. The examiner further agrees that Hayakawa also fails to teach wherein the base member, the winding member, and the plurality of intermediate members are formed integrally by casting. The examiner agrees that the disclosure does not discuss dimensions and the drawings are not to scale, however, the examiner construed that the winding member and base member thicknesses of Hayakawa are about similar, therefore one skilled in the art would experiment and discover a wall thickness of the winding member in the radial direction to be the same as a wall thickness of the base member in the radial direction in order to improve the strength and rigidity of the members to prevent bending and warping and maintain cylindricity of the sheave. The examiner further construed that the disclosure of Ball teaches wherein the base member, the winding member, and the plurality of intermediate members are formed integrally by casting, as described above. Thus, contradicting to applicant’s assertions, such argument and amendment does not overcome the prior art . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art . 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 HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm 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, VICTORIA 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. /H.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654 /VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 3612 May 27, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/291,930 Page 2 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/291,930 Page 3 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/291,930 Page 4 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/291,930 Page 5 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/291,930 Page 6 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/291,930 Page 7 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/291,930 Page 8 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 18/291,930 Page 9 Art Unit: 3654
Prosecution Insights