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 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) 1-2, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kores (US6511089B1) in view of Adelman (US4399979A).
Regarding claims 1-2, 15, and 17, Kores discloses a hoist mount and hoist assembly, comprising: a main member (16, 28; Figures 1-6) having a proximal end (PE; see Kores annotated Figure 6 below) and a distal end (DE), the proximal end (PE) configured to engage into a vehicle hitch receiver (12), wherein the main member (16, 28) is a linear beam; a hoist mounting bracket (HMB) at the distal end (DE) of the main member (16, 28); a hoist (18) attached to the hoist mounting bracket (HMB) including a motor (38) and a drum (36) operable by the motor (38); a pulley (40) mounted on the main member (16, 28) between the proximal end (PE) and a midpoint (MP) of the main member (16, 28); wherein the main member (16, 28) has a rectangular cross-section (Figure 3), but fails to teach a rope lock mounted on the main member between the pulley and the distal end, the rope lock configured to receive and selectively lock movement of a rope, extending between the hoist and the pulley, in at least one direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
266
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kores, Annotated Figure 6
Adelman teaches a similar hoist assembly and further teaches a rope lock (23; Figure 6) mounted on the main member (13; Figure 1) between the pulley (16) and the distal end (left side end of 13; Figure 1), the rope lock (23) configured to receive and selectively lock movement of a rope (21), extending between the hoist (11) and the pulley (16), in at least one direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hoist mount/assembly of Kores to include the rope lock as taught by Adelman in order to guide and centralize the rope towards the pulley and further directly clamp and grip the rope to prevent mobilization of the rope when the hoist is not operating.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kores, in view of Adelman, and in further view of DeVries (US3767230A).
Regarding claims 4-6 and 18, modified Kores discloses the above hoist mount and hoist assembly and further teaches wherein the pulley (40) includes a pulley wheel rotatably mounted in a pulley housing (PH; see Kores annotated Figure 6 above), but fails to teach wherein the pulley housing is rotatable about an axis; wherein the axis is parallel to the main member; wherein the pulley includes a bracket for attaching the pulley housing to the main member.
DeVries teaches a similar hoist mount and further teaches wherein the pulley housing (51) is rotatable about an axis (AX; see DeVries annotated Figure 2 below); wherein the axis (AX) is parallel to the main member (27); wherein the pulley (50) includes a bracket (48, 54, 55) for attaching the pulley housing (51) to the main member (27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hoist mount/assembly of Kores to include the pulley housing as taught by DeVries in order to allow redirection of the rope away from the main member and allow pivotal movement of the pulley to ensure proper cable feeding direction to prevent damage to the line.
PNG
media_image2.png
116
303
media_image2.png
Greyscale
DeVries, Annotated Figure 2
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kores, in view of Adelman, in view of DeVries, and in further view of Johnson (US3899158A).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kores discloses the above hoist mount and hoist assembly, but fails to teach wherein the pulley housing includes a gate configured to open and close the pulley housing.
Johnson teaches a similar hoist pulley and further teaches wherein the pulley housing (10; Figures 1-2) includes a gate (24) configured to open and close the pulley housing (10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hoist mount/assembly of Kores to include the pulley gate as taught by Johnson in order to easily provide an entry or exit for the line into the pulley assembly without having to disassemble the pulley assembly.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kores, in view of Adelman, in view of Mihailovic (FR2846935A1), and in further view of Freeman (US1162763A).
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Kores discloses the above hoist mount and hoist assembly, but fails to teach wherein the rope lock includes a drum and a rotatable cam defining a space for receiving a rope therebetween, at least one spring biasing the cam to a closed position, and a latch for accessing the space between the drum and the cam; wherein the rope lock further includes a mechanism on the cam configured to selectively rotate the cam to an open position, the mechanism including an attachment device on a side of the cam for receiving a pulling force from a user.
Mihailovic teaches a similar rope lock and further teaches wherein the rope lock (1; Figures 1-6) includes a drum (3) and a rotatable cam (4) defining a space for receiving a rope (10) therebetween, at least one spring biasing (Abstract; locking element is elastically biased) the cam (4) to a closed position; wherein the rope lock (1) further includes a mechanism (11, 18; 14) on the cam (4) configured to selectively rotate the cam (4) to an open position, the mechanism (11, 18; 14) including an attachment device (18) on a side of the cam (4) for receiving a pulling force from a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hoist mount/assembly of Kores to include the rope lock assembly as taught by Mihailovic in order to allow the line to move freely without wear when manually operated and directly clamp and grip the line to prevent mobilization of the line when the hoist is not operating.
Freeman teaches a similar rope lock and further teaches and a latch (7; Figures 1-2) for accessing the space between the drum (5) and the cam (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 hoist mount/assembly of Kores to include the latch as taught by Freeman in order to easily provide an entry or exit for the line into the rope lock assembly and further prevents the rope from slipping out of the rope lock assembly when closed.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kores, in view of Adelman, and in further view of Herda (CA1052981A).
Regarding claims 10-12 and 19-20, modified Kores discloses the above hoist mount and hoist assembly, but fails to teach wherein the rope lock includes a rope lock cam pivotable about an axis and a housing having an upper portion extending at least partially over the rope lock cam, wherein the rope lock is configured to selectively retain a rope between the rope lock cam and the upper portion of the housing; wherein the rope lock cam includes a surface facing the upper portion of the housing having a plurality of protrusions; wherein the rope lock cam is biased in a locked position by a spring.
Herda teaches a similar rope lock and further teaches wherein the rope lock includes a rope lock cam (22; Figures 1-4) pivotable about an axis (24) and a housing (10, 14, 16) having an upper portion (16) extending at least partially over the rope lock cam (22), wherein the rope lock is configured to selectively retain a rope (36) between the rope lock cam (22) and the upper portion (16) of the housing (10, 14, 16); wherein the rope lock cam (22) includes a surface facing the upper portion (16) of the housing (10, 14, 16) having a plurality of protrusions (32); wherein the rope lock cam (22) is biased in a locked position by a spring (26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hoist mount/assembly of Kores to include the rope lock assembly as taught by Herda in order to frictionally engage the line to prevent mobilization of the line when the hoist is not operating.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kores, in view of Adelman, in view of Herda, and in further view of McCloud (US3770244A).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kores discloses the above hoist mount and hoist assembly, but fails to teach wherein the rope lock further includes a roller shaft having a roller at a distal end of the roller shaft.
McCloud teaches a similar rope lock and further teaches wherein the rope lock further includes a roller shaft (screw fasteners for rollers 41; Figure 3) having a roller (41) at a distal end of the roller shaft (screw fasteners). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hoist mount/assembly of Kores to include the rope lock roller as taught by McCloud in order to correctly guide and position the line through the rope lock to prevent the line from unintentional contact with other components of the assembly that may cause wear or damage to the line.
Claim(s) 3, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kores, in view of Adelman, and in further view of Smith (US11427291B2).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, modified Kores discloses the above hoist mount and hoist assembly, but fails to teach wherein the hoist mounting bracket is configured to retain the hoist in a vertical orientation.
Smith teaches a similar hoist assembly and further teaches wherein the hoist mounting bracket (225; Figures 2-3) is configured to retain the hoist (220) in a vertical orientation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hoist mount/assembly of Kores to include the vertical hoist orientation as taught by Smith in order to help reduce the size of the main member to help reduce required space and cost of material.
Regarding claim 14, modified Kores discloses the above hoist mount and hoist assembly, but fails to teach wherein the hoist mounting bracket includes a base plate shaped to at least partially circumscribe a capstan hoist.
Smith teaches a similar rope lock and further teaches wherein the hoist mounting bracket (225; Figures 2-3) includes a base plate shaped to at least partially circumscribe a capstan hoist (220). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hoist mount/assembly of Kores to include the base plate as taught by Smith in order to reduce weight of the assembly by reducing material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 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.
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, 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
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights