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 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, line 1, “wherein first end” should read ---wherein the first end---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a receiver that removably receives” in line 7 of claim 1, line 3 of claim 16, and line 13 of claim 26.
“a gripping mechanism that secures” in lines 1-2 of claim 2 and line 1 of claim 17.
“a stopper mechanism that applies tension” in line 2 of claim 4 and lines 1-2 of claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10-12, 16-20, 22, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US20200339029A1) in view of Gresham (US8141852B1).
Regarding claims 1, 10-11, 16, and 26, Chen discloses a ratchet strap system and method for installing a ratchet strap system, comprising: a first strap (4; Figures 2-5) that includes a ratchet mechanism (1); a second strap (3) that includes a strap tip on a first end of the second strap (3); a ratchet mechanism (1) attached to a first end of the first strap (4); attaching a first hook (5) on a second end of the first strap (4) to an attachment point on a first surface, attaching a second hook (5) on a second strap (3) to an attachment point on a second surface; inserting the strap tip of the second strap (3) into the ratchet mechanism (1) on the first strap (4); activating the ratchet mechanism (1) to receive additional portions of the second strap (3) through the ratchet mechanism (1); “indirectly” attaching a reel device (2) to the first strap (4), the reel device (2) comprising: a base (21) that removably receives the first strap (4); a receiver (22) that removably receives a first end of the second strap (3); and a reel mechanism (23, 231) operatively connected to the receiver (22), inserting the strap tip of the second strap (3) into the receiver (22) of the reel device (2); and activating the reel mechanism (23, 231) to rotate the receiver (22), wherein, when the reel mechanism (23, 231) rotates a first angular distance, the receiver (22) rotates a second angular distance proportional to the first angular distance in a same direction as the first angular distance (1:1 ratio), and wherein, when the receiver (22) is rotating while receiving the second strap (3) of the ratchet strap system, the second strap (3) wraps around the receiver (22), but fails to teach a base configured to slidably and removably attach (“coupled” claim 16) to the first strap; slidably attaching a reel device to the first strap.
Gresham teaches a similar ratchet strap system and further teaches a base (20; Figures 5-6) configured to slidably and removably attach (“coupled” claim 16) to the first strap (12; 4 of Chen); slidably attaching a reel device (45) to the first strap (12; 4 of Chen). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratchet system and reel device of Chen to include the slidably attached base and reel device as taught by Gresham in order to mount and position the base/reel device at various locations a distance away from the ratchet to avoid interference.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 17-18, Chen discloses wherein the receiver (22) includes a gripping mechanism (221, 223, 224; Figures 9-10) that secures the first end of the second strap (3); wherein the gripping mechanism (221, 223, 224) comprises gripping teeth (224)
Regarding claims 4-5 and 19, Chen discloses wherein the reel device (2) further comprises a stopper mechanism (24) that applies tension to the reel mechanism (23, 231), wherein the stopper mechanism (24) comprises a holder (23, 24, 21) for a spindle (23) of the reel mechanism (23, 231; ¶0037, when an inner end face of the winding wheel 23 is resisted against the outer surface of the frame 21, the winding shaft 2 is locked and prevented from rotation, thus preventing the strap 3 from unwinding)
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Chen discloses wherein the reel mechanism (23, 231) comprises a spindle (23) and a rotor (231).
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Chen discloses the above ratchet system and reel device, but fails to teach wherein the base comprises a slot that slides over the first strap to cover at least three sides of the first strap.
Gresham teaches a similar ratchet strap system and further teaches wherein the base (20) comprises a slot (31; Figure 6) that slides over the first strap (12; 4 of Chen) to cover at least three sides of the first strap (12; 4 of Chen). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratchet system and reel device of Chen to include the base slot as taught by Gresham in order to mount and position the base/reel device at various locations a distance away from the ratchet to avoid interference.
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses wherein first end of the second strap (3) is first received by the ratchet mechanism (1) and then received by the reel mechanism (22, 231; reel device 2).
Claim(s) 7 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Gresham, and in further view of Ratzlaff (US20020030133A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Chen discloses the above ratchet system and reel device, but fails to teach wherein the base comprises a tongue connected to the base that extends upwards towards the receiver to guide the second strap to the receiver.
Ratzlaff teaches a similar ratchet strap system and further teaches wherein the base (10; Figures 1-2) comprises a tongue (54) connected to the base (10) that extends upwards towards the receiver (46) to guide the second strap (12) to the receiver (46; Figure 5, the tongue 54 extends upwards from a wall of the base towards the receiver 46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratchet system and reel device of Chen to include the tongue as taught by Ratzlaff in order to keep the strap flat and prevent uncoiling, folding, and tangling of the strap.
Claim(s) 13 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Gresham, and in further view of Haddow (US0594619A).
Regarding claims 13 and 23, modified Chen discloses the above ratchet system and reel device, but fails to teach wherein the receiver comprises a compound receiver, the compound receiver further comprising: a first axle operatively connected to the reel mechanism; a second axle; and a continuous belt that at least partially wraps around each of the first axle and the second axle.
Haddow teaches a similar reel device and further teaches wherein the receiver comprises a compound receiver (g0, g5; Figures 3-4), the compound receiver (g0, g5) further comprising: a first axle (g0) operatively connected to the reel mechanism (m, m1; Figure 1); a second axle (g5); and a continuous belt (g3) that at least partially wraps around each of the first axle (g0) and the second axle (g5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratchet system and reel device of Chen to include the compound receiver as taught by Haddow in order to reduce the layers of the strap to help reduce the height or width of the ratchet system.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Gresham, in view of Haddow, and in further view of Davis (US2815850A).
Regarding claims 14-15 and 24-25, modified Chen discloses the above ratchet system and reel device, but fails to teach wherein the continuous belt comprises a rough surface, wherein the compound receiver receives the first end of the second strap by adhering the first end of the second strap to the rough surface of the continuous belt; wherein the rough surface of the continuous belt comprises one or more barbs.
Haddow teaches a similar reel device and further teaches wherein the compound receiver (g0, g5) receives the first end of the second strap (3 of Chen) by adhering the first end of the second strap (3 of Chen) to the surface of the continuous belt, but fails to teach wherein the continuous belt comprises a rough surface; wherein the rough surface of the continuous belt comprises one or more barbs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratchet system and reel device of Chen to include the compound receiver as taught by Haddow in order to reduce the layers of the strap to help reduce the height or width of the ratchet system.
Davis teaches a similar continuous belt and further teaches wherein the continuous belt (1; Figure 4) comprises a rough surface; wherein the rough surface of the continuous belt (1) comprises one or more barbs (3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratchet system and reel device of Chen to include the continuous belt as taught by Davis in order to increase friction and reduce slippage of the strap.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 with respect to claims 1, 8, 16, and 26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 16, and 26, in the last paragraph in page 6 and in pages 7-11, the applicant argued that the disclosure of Huang, Chen, and the other cited references, fail to teach a base and reel device that is configured to slidably and removably attach to the first strap, and wherein the base comprises a slot that slides over the first strap to cover at least three sides of the first strap.
The examiner agrees that the disclosure of Huang, Chen, and the other cited references, fail to teach a base and reel device that is configured to slidably and removably attach to the first strap, and wherein the base comprises a slot that slides over the first strap to cover at least three sides of the first strap. However, the examiner construed that the disclosure of Gresham teaches a base and reel device comprising a slot in order to be slidably and removably attached to the strap, in which the slot covers at least three sides of the strap, as described above. Thus, contradicting to applicant’s assertions, such amendment does not overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
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, 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.
/H.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619