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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/19/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 5 and 16 recite “a sheave” in addition to the sheave (now) set forth in (respectively) claims 1 and 11, from which claims 5 and 16 depend. The original disclosure does not discuss, or show in any way, two separate sheaves in the same embodiment. Rather, the instant disclosure only recites a single sheave (element 66). Multiple “rollers” are set forth separately (e.g. 68), but are not considered “sheaves” by the Office because they have a different shape, and are claimed separately.
Claims 6-9 and 17-20 depend from one of claims 5 and 16.
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 5-9 and 16-20 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.
Claims 5 and 16 recite “a sheave” in addition to the sheave (now) set forth in (respectively) claims 1 and 11, from which claims 5 and 16 depend. The original disclosure does not discuss, or show in any way, two separate sheaves in the same embodiment. Rather, the instant disclosure only recites a single sheave (element 66). Multiple “rollers” are set forth separately (e.g. 68). As the claims are read in light of the specification, it is not clear what the claims cover. How many sheaves are required by claims 5 and 16?
For purposes of this action, the recitations in claims 5 and 16 are considered to refer to the same sheave as set forth in claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Claims 6-9 and 17-20 each depend from one of claims 5 and 16.
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.
Claims 1, 5-10, 11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0230671 A1 (hereinafter “Mott”) in view of US 2016/0096709 (hereinafter “Averill”), and in further view of US 6,983,927 (hereinafter “Pelletier”).
Regarding claim 1 Mott teaches a rope pulling apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a drum (12) for having rope (14) wound therearound;
a drive apparatus (16) for providing power to the rope pulling apparatus (fig. 1) and driving the drum's (12) rotations;
a guide post (18) hingedly supported by the rope pulling apparatus (fig. 1) to position the rope (14) at a desired position relative to the drum (12) to properly wrap the rope (14) around the drum (12) wherein the guide post (18) is rotatable perpendicular to the direction of travel of the rope (14),
a guide apparatus (18b) supported by the guide post (18), the guide apparatus (18b) guides the rope (14) as the rope (14) is wound on the drum (12); and
Mott fails to teach the speed control apparatus and controller as recited in claim 1. Averill teaches a rope pulling apparatus, the apparatus comprising a drum (16) for having rope (18) wound therearound; and a drive (“motor,” paragraph 15) apparatus for providing power to the rope pulling apparatus and driving the drum's (16) rotations. Averill further teaches a speed control apparatus (“sensor such as an angular position,” see paragraph 53) monitoring the rope (18) being pulled and wound on the drum (16); and a controller (see 800) for determining the speed of the rope (18) and adjusting the drive (“motor,” paragraph 15) apparatus to speed up or slow down the rotation of the drum (16) responsive to the speed of the rope (18) (see paragraphs 52-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the speed control of Averill to the winch of Mott with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to avoid unwanted jerking of the rope and different speeds.
Mott fails to teach the sheave set forth in claim 1. Pelletier teaches a similar rope winding guide mounted to a pivoted arm, which traverses to apply level rope winding to a drum. Pelletier further teaches a sheave (60) between guiding rollers and the drum (see figs. 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the sheave of Pelletier to the guide of Mott with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to effect more orderly winding and reduce friction.
Regarding claim 11 Mott teaches a method of winding rope (14) on a drum (12), the method comprising:
winding a rope (14) at a desired constant rope (14) speed onto a drum (12) with a rope pulling apparatus (fig. 1), the rope pulling apparatus (fig. 1) comprising:
a drum (12) for having rope (14) wound therearound;
a drive apparatus (16) for providing power to the rope pulling apparatus (fig. 1) and driving the drum's (12) rotations;
a guide post (18) hingedly supported by the rope pulling apparatus (fig. 1) to position the rope (14) at a desired position relative to the drum (12) to properly wrap the rope (14) around the drum (12) wherein the guide post (18) is rotatable perpendicular to the direction of travel of the rope (14),
a guide apparatus (18b) supported by the guide post (18), the guide apparatus (18b) guides the rope (14) as the rope (14) is wound on the drum (12).
Mott fails to teach the method of speed control as recited in claim 11.
Averill teaches a speed control apparatus (“sensor such as an angular position,” see paragraph 53) monitoring the rope (18) being pulled and wound on the drum (16); and a controller (see 800) for determining the speed of the rope (18) and adjusting the drive apparatus (“motor,” paragraph 15) to speed up or slow down the rotation of the drum (16) responsive to the speed of the rope (18) (see paragraphs 52-55); and determining a speed of the rope (see fig. 8); and adjusting power of the rope pulling apparatus (motor) to achieve the desired constant speed (at 806). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the speed control of Averill to the winch of Mott with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to avoid unwanted jerking of the rope and different speeds.
Mott fails to teach the sheave set forth in claim 11. Pelletier teaches a similar rope winding guide mounted to a pivoted arm, which traverses to apply level rope winding to a drum. Pelletier further teaches a sheave (60) between guiding rollers and the drum (see figs. 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the sheave of Pelletier to the guide of Mott with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to effect more orderly winding and reduce friction.
Regarding claims 5 and 16 modified Mott teaches the above apparatus, and further teaches wherein the guide apparatus (Mott 18b) includes two vertically disposed rollers (Mott 18b) to guide the rope (Mott 14) towards the sheave (Pelletier 60) that turns as the rope (Mott 14) is pulled in by the rope pulling apparatus (Mott fig. 1). Mott fails to teach the sheave set forth in claims 5 and 16.
Regarding claims 6 and 17 modified Mott teaches the above apparatus, but fails to teach the horizontal roller as set forth in claims 6 and 17. Pelletier further teaches a horizontally disposed roller (46) positioned adjacent to the sheave (60) to maintain position of a rope (28) in a channel of the sheave (60) (see figs. 2-3) when the rope (28) is being pulled in by a rope pulling apparatus (drum actuator). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the horizontal guiding rollers of Pelletier to the guide of Mott with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better prevent unwanted vertical sliding of the rope.
Regarding claims 8 and 19 modified Mott teaches the above apparatus (see claims 6 and 17), wherein the sheave (Pelletier 60) is rotatably supported (at least indirectly) by brackets (Mott, base frame members in fig. 1) and the vertically disposed rollers (Mott 18b) and the horizontally disposed roller (Pelletier 46) are supported by slat elements (Pelletier 43) that are supported by the brackets (Mott, base frame members in fig. 1).
Regarding claims 7 and 18 modified Mott teaches the above apparatus, and further teaches wherein the speed control apparatus (Averill, “sensor such as an angular position,” see paragraph 53) includes a sensor (Averill paragraphs 54-55) to determine the number of revolutions of the sheave (Pelletier 38) per unit of time and providing that information to the controller (Averill 800).
Regarding claims 9 and 20 modified Mott teaches the above apparatus, including the sheave (Pelletier 38). Mott fails to teach the sensing element of claims 9 and 20, or determining the number of revolutions per unit of time. Averill teaches a sensing element (Averill par. 55) disposed thereon that cooperates with the sensor (Averill paragraphs 54-55) to determine the number of revolutions (Averill par. 55: “by counting the number of revolutions…”) of the sheave per unit of time (i.e. the speed calculation of Averill inherently incorporates the unit of time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the sensing element and revolution counting of Averill to the system of Mott with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better account for the length of the rope.
Regarding claim 10 modified Mott teaches the above apparatus, but fails to disclose an hydraulic piston. Pelletier teaches an hydraulic piston (40) attached to a guide post (34) to effect orderly winding on the drum (26). Thus the difference between Mott and the recitations of claim 10 appear to represent no more than substitution of known parts in known ways to achieve predictable results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rotary guide actuator of Mott with a hydraulic piston, as taught by Pelletier, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to reduce the overall height of Mott, and thus increase stability and improve the center of gravity.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mott in view of Averill, and in further view of US 2019/0337776 (hereinafter “Fanello”).
Regarding claims 4 and 15 modified Mott teaches the above apparatus. Mott fails to teach the inclinometer as set forth in claims 4 and 15. Fanello teaches a rope pulling apparatus, and a method of use thereof similar to Mott. Fanello further teaches wherein the guide post (Fanello 60) includes an inclinometer (Fanello 72; see paragraphs 118 and 127) disposed thereon to determine the position of the guide post (Fanello 60) and the guide apparatus (Fanello 56) relative to the drum (Fanello 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the pivoting post sensor system of Fanello to the pivoting post of Mott with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better actuate the post of Mott.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 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. Specifically Pelletier is relied upon to teach the newly claimed sheave.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time.
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 P 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.
/NATHANIEL L ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights