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 .
Drawings
The newly submitted Figures 13 and 14, filed on 19-May-2026 are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because they introduce new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: a “functional clearance” (20) that is centered about the second rotational shaft (8).
The original drawings did not depict or sufficiently identify a functional clearance. The original specification disclosed that “the functional clearance extends at least in an arc of a circle the radius of which extends from the axis of rotation AA of the roller 2 and passes through the second rotation shaft 8” (see page 18, lines 7-9). The “functional clearance” (20), shown in the new Figures 13 and 14, does not form an arc of a circle the radius of which extends from the axis of rotation AA of the roller and passes through the second rotation shaft. Rather the functional clearance (20) is depicted as a circle that is centered about the second rotation shaft (8), and is therefore considered new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 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.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “a functional clearance” is indefinite because the specification has not specified which element in the drawings corresponds to the functional clearance, and it is not clear from the written description what is considered to be a functional clearance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolner et al. (US 2005/0051659) in view of Hansen (US 3,421,605).
Regarding independent claim 1, Wolner discloses a detection device (see Abstract; FIGS. 1, 2) configured to detect a speed of rotation of a roller (111) (see ¶ 0026) of a clamping device (100) of a wire element (see ¶ 0025) comprising: - a body (101); - a first rotation shaft (126) fixed to a body (via (140)); - a roller (111) mounted rotating around the first rotation shaft (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0022), the first rotation shaft defining a first axis of rotation for the roller (see FIG. 1); - a clamp (118) fixed to the body (see ¶ 0023) and having a first contact surface (141); - at least one member (128) fixed to the roller so as to rotate around the first axis of rotation in an annular volume arranged between the first axis of rotation and the clamp (see FIG. 2), the at least one member having a second contact surface (129), the at least one member being mounted movable with respect to the first axis of rotation between a first member position in which a first distance between the first axis of rotation and a distal part of the second contact surface is smaller than a second distance between the first axis of rotation and a proximal part of the first contact surface (see FIG. 1, the members (128) being located in the first position) and a second member position in which the first distance is greater than the second distance (see ¶ 0026, “the base portion 129 [pivots] away from the plate 143 and engage at least one of the ratcheting teeth 141 of the brake hub 118”), rotation of the roller generating a centrifugal force designed to move the second contact surface away from the first axis of rotation to increase the value of the first distance so that the second contact surface is in contact with the first contact surface when the speed of rotation of the roller exceeds a threshold speed of rotation (see ¶ 0026, “the base portion 129 [pivots] away from the plate 143 and engage at least one of the ratcheting teeth 141 of the brake hub 118”), the clamp blocking one direction of rotation of the roller when the first contact surface is in contact with the second contact surface (see ¶ 0026), wherein the member has a ratchet element (129), the ratchet element comprising the second contact surface (see FIG. 2).
Wolner does not disclose that the member has a flyweight portion and a ratchet element arranged one after the other in a direction parallel to the first axis of rotation; wherein, in the second member position, the flyweight portion is devoid of contact with the clamp; and wherein a distal part of the flyweight portion is farther from the first axis of rotation than a distal part of the second contact surface in an observation along the first axis of rotation.
Hansen teaches a detection device configured to detect a speed of rotation of a roller (see col. 1, lines 31-60; FIGS. 1, 2), comprising: at least one member (19, 20) fixed to the roller so as to rotate around the first axis of rotation in an annular volume arranged between the first axis of rotation and a clamp (15) (see FIG. 1), the at least one member having a second contact surface (27, 29), the at least one member being mounted movable with respect to the first axis of rotation between a first member position in which a first distance between the first axis of rotation and a distal part of the second contact surface is smaller than a second distance between the first axis of rotation and a proximal part of the first contact surface (see FIG. 1, the members (19, 20) being located in the first position) and a second member position in which the first distance is greater than the second distance (see col. 3, lines 34-41), rotation of the roller generating a centrifugal force designed to move the second contact surface away from the first axis of rotation to increase the value of the first distance so that the second contact surface is in contact with the first contact surface when the speed of rotation of the roller exceeds a threshold speed of rotation (see col. 3, lines 34-41), the clamp blocking one direction of rotation of the roller when the first contact surface is in contact with the second contact surface (see FIG. 1; col. 3, lines 34-41), the at least one member (19, 20) comprising a flyweight portion (28, 30) and a ratchet element (27, 29) arranged one after the other in a direction parallel to the first axis of rotation (see FIG. 2), the ratchet element comprising the second contact surface (see FIG. 1); wherein, in a second member position, the flyweight portion is devoid of contact with a clamp (15) (see FIGS. 1, 2; flyweights (28, 30) are spaced above clamp (15)); and wherein a distal part of the flyweight portion is farther from the first axis of rotation than a distal part of the second contact surface in an observation along the first axis of rotation (see FIG. 1, distal end of flyweights (28, 30) extend radially farther than distal part of contact surfaces (27, 29)).
It would have been obvious to configure the detection device of Wolner to have a flyweight, as taught by Hansen, to positively insure the locking engagement upon sudden acceleration of the roller (see e.g. Hansen, col. 3, lines 34-55).
Regarding claim 2, Hansen teaches that in the first member position, a radial distance between the first axis of rotation and the distal part of the flyweight portion is greater than a radial distance between the first axis of rotation and a proximal part of the first clamping surface (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Hansen teaches that the member is mounted rotatable around a second rotation shaft (21, 22) between the first member position and the second member position, wherein a stop (24, 26) is mounted fixedly on the roller (see FIG. 1; col. 4, lines 41-46), the stop being in contact with the ratchet element when the member is in the second member position to reduce the mechanical stress on the second rotation shaft (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Hansen discloses that the ratchet element and the second rotation shaft define a functional clearance at least in the form of an arc of a circle the first axis of rotation of which is the centre to reduce the mechanical stress on the second rotation shaft (see FIG. 1, showing functional clearance between member (19, 27) and stop (24)).
Regarding claim 11, Hansen teaches that the flyweight portion is mounted fixedly with respect to the second contact surface (see FIGS. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 13, Wolner discloses a method for clamping a wire element comprising the following steps:- providing a clamping device according to claim 1 (see claim 1, above) and a wire element (see ¶ 0005) fitted in the clamping device in contact with the roller (see ¶ 0005); - making the wire element run inside the clamping device so as to make the roller rotate up to a threshold speed of rotation to block the roller and block the wire element inside the clamping device (see ¶ 0026).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolner et al. (US 2005/0051659) in view of Hansen (US 3,421,605), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Burke (US 2022/0055858).
Regarding claim 4, Wolner does not disclose that the member is mounted rotatable around a second rotation shaft between the first member position and the second member position, the second rotation shaft being fixed to the roller and mounted rotatable around the first rotation shaft inside the roller.
Burke teaches that the member is mounted rotatable around a second rotation shaft (183) between the first member position and the second member position (see FIGS. 15, 16), the second rotation shaft being fixed to the roller and mounted rotatable around the first rotation shaft inside the roller (see e.g. FIGS. 2, 15, 16).
It would have been obvious to configure the member of Wolner to be mounted rotatable around a second rotation shaft inside the roller to provide a more axially compact device, in addition to the roller providing a protective cover over the clamp and pawl members (see e.g. Feng, FIG. 12).
Regarding claim 5, Feng teaches that the clamp (198) and the at least one member (182, 188) are located inside the roller (see FIG. 12). Therefore, when a flyweight, as taught by Hansen, is integrally formed with the at least one member, the flyweight would also be located within the roller.
Claims 1, 6-8, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (US 9,861,841) in view of Hansen (US 3,421,605).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hung discloses a detection device (see Abstract; FIGS. 1-5) configured to detect a speed of rotation of a roller (40) (see col. 4, lines 48-57) of a clamping device (125) of a wire element (200) comprising: - a body (10); - a first rotation shaft (20); - a roller (40) mounted rotating around the first rotation shaft (see FIGS. 1, 2), the first rotation shaft defining a first axis of rotation for the roller (see FIG. 2); - a clamp (125) fixed to the body (see FIG. 2) and having a first contact surface (125); - at least one member (62) fixed to the roller so as to rotate around the first axis of rotation in an annular volume arranged between the first axis of rotation and the clamp (see col. 4, lines 29-35), the at least one member having a second contact surface (see FIG. 4), the at least one member being mounted movable with respect to the first axis of rotation between a first member position (see col. 4, lines 29-35) in which a first distance between the first axis of rotation and a distal part of the second contact surface is smaller than a second distance between the first axis of rotation and a proximal part of the first contact surface (see FIG. 3) and a second member position (see col. 4, lines 48-57; FIG. 4) in which the first distance is greater than the second distance (see col. 4, lines 48-57; FIG. 4), rotation of the roller generating a centrifugal force designed to move the second contact surface away from the first axis of rotation to increase the value of the first distance so that the second contact surface is in contact with the first contact surface when the speed of rotation of the roller exceeds a threshold speed of rotation (see col. 4, lines 48-57; FIG. 4), the clamp blocking one direction of rotation of the roller when the first contact surface is in contact with the second contact surface (see FIG. 4), wherein the member has a ratchet element (62), the ratchet element comprising the second contact surface (see FIG. 4).
Hung does not disclose that the member has a flyweight portion and a ratchet element arranged one after the other in a direction parallel to the first axis of rotation; wherein, in the second member position, the flyweight portion is devoid of contact with the clamp; and wherein a distal part of the flyweight portion is farther from the first axis of rotation than a distal part of the second contact surface in an observation along the first axis of rotation.
Hansen teaches a detection device configured to detect a speed of rotation of a roller (see col. 1, lines 31-60; FIGS. 1, 2), comprising: at least one member (19, 20) fixed to the roller so as to rotate around the first axis of rotation in an annular volume arranged between the first axis of rotation and a clamp (15) (see FIG. 1), the at least one member having a second contact surface (27, 29), the at least one member being mounted movable with respect to the first axis of rotation between a first member position in which a first distance between the first axis of rotation and a distal part of the second contact surface is smaller than a second distance between the first axis of rotation and a proximal part of the first contact surface (see FIG. 1, the members (19, 20) being located in the first position) and a second member position in which the first distance is greater than the second distance (see col. 3, lines 34-41), rotation of the roller generating a centrifugal force designed to move the second contact surface away from the first axis of rotation to increase the value of the first distance so that the second contact surface is in contact with the first contact surface when the speed of rotation of the roller exceeds a threshold speed of rotation (see col. 3, lines 34-41), the clamp blocking one direction of rotation of the roller when the first contact surface is in contact with the second contact surface (see FIG. 1; col. 3, lines 34-41), the at least one member (19, 20) comprising a flyweight portion (28, 30) and a ratchet element (27, 29) arranged one after the other in a direction parallel to the first axis of rotation (see FIG. 2), the ratchet element comprising the second contact surface (see FIG. 1); wherein, in a second member position, the flyweight portion is devoid of contact with a clamp (15) (see FIGS. 1, 2; flyweights (28, 30) are spaced above clamp (15)); and wherein a distal part of the flyweight portion is farther from the first axis of rotation than a distal part of the second contact surface in an observation along the first axis of rotation (see FIG. 1, distal end of flyweights (28, 30) extend radially farther than distal part of contact surfaces (27, 29)).
It would have been obvious to configure the detection device of Hung to have a flyweight, as taught by Hansen, to positively insure the locking engagement upon sudden acceleration of the roller (see e.g. Hansen, col. 3, lines 34-55).
Regarding claim 2, Hansen teaches that in the first member position, a radial distance between the first axis of rotation and the distal part of the flyweight portion is greater than a radial distance between the first axis of rotation and a proximal part of the first clamping surface (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Hansen teaches that the member is mounted rotatable around a second rotation shaft (21, 22) between the first member position and the second member position, wherein a stop (24, 26) is mounted fixedly on the roller (see FIG. 1; col. 4, lines 41-46), the stop being in contact with the ratchet element when the member is in the second member position to reduce the mechanical stress on the second rotation shaft (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Hansen discloses that the ratchet element and the second rotation shaft define a functional clearance at least in the form of an arc of a circle the first axis of rotation of which is the centre to reduce the mechanical stress on the second rotation shaft (see FIG. 1, showing functional clearance between member (19, 27) and stop (24)).
Regarding claim 8, Hung discloses that the body comprises a first flange (121) and a second flange (122), the first rotation shaft being fixed to the first flange and to the second flange (see col. 2, line 65 to col. 3, line 5), the roller being located between the first flange and the second flange (see FIGS. 1, 2), and wherein the clamp is mounted fixedly on the second flange (see FIGS. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 11, Hansen teaches that the flyweight portion is mounted fixedly with respect to the second contact surface (see FIGS. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 13, Hung discloses a method for clamping a wire element comprising the following steps:- providing a clamping device according to claim 1 (see claim 1, above) and a wire element (200) fitted in the clamping device in contact with the roller (see FIGS. 1, 2); - making the wire element run inside the clamping device so as to make the roller rotate up to a threshold speed of rotation to block the roller and block the wire element inside the clamping device (see col. 4, lines 48-57; FIG. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19-May-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant argues that “Figs. 13 and 14 are amended to identify the functional clearance in claim 7 and to more clearly illustrate the second rotation shaft” (see Amendment, page 10). Claim 7, however, defines the “functional clearance” as being “in the form of an arc of a circle the first axis of rotation of which is the centre.” As shown in Figure 14, however, the first axis of rotation (3) does not form the center of the arc of the functional clearance. Rather, as shown in the newly submitted Figure 14, the functional clearance (20) is centered about the second rotation of axis (8).
PNG
media_image1.png
439
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the specification discloses that “the functional clearance extends at least in an arc of a circle the radius of which extends from the axis of rotation AA of the roller 2 and passes through the second rotation shaft 8” (see page 18, lines 7-9). The “functional clearance” (20), shown above in Figure 14, does not form an arc of a circle the radius of which extends from the axis of rotation AA of the roller and passes through the second rotation shaft. Rather the functional clearance (20) is depicted as a circle that is centered about the second rotation shaft (8).
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolner in view of Hansen, Applicant argues that “Hansen does not disclose a detection device with ‘a flyweight portion and a ratchet element arranged one after another in a direction parallel to the first axis of rotation” because “[t]he two arms are angularly shifted” (see Amendment, page 11). Figure 2 of Hansen, however, discloses that the flyweight portion (30) and the ratchet element (20, 29) are arranged one after another in a direction parallel to the first axis of rotation (see Annotated FIG. 2, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
421
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant further agues “according to claim 1, at least a part of the flyweight portion and at least a part of the ratchet element belong to a same radius” (see Amendment, page 11). Figure 2 of Hansen shows that at least a part of the flyweight (30) and at least a part of the ratchet element (20) belong to a same radius (R) (see e.g. Annotated FIG. 2, above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are allowed.
Claims 12 and 14-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571)272-7124. 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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights