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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
As concerns the Specification, Paragraph [007], Line 5 recites the phrase "would up". This appears to be a typographical error of the phrase "wound up" and has been interpreted as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 13 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As concerns claim 1, and 13, Line 8 in both claims recites the limitation "to receive to the strap"
As concerns claims 1 and 13, both claims recite the phrase "would up". This appears to be a typographical error of the phrase "wound up" and has been interpreted as such.
As concerns claims 7 and 19, Line 2 recites the limitation “the cavity”. The article identifier “the” should be changed to ‘a’ for proper antecedent basis agreement.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 5-9, 13-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 9,616,801) in view of Van Benthem et al (US 2013/0206895).
As concerns claim 1, Williams (US 9,616,801) discloses a system for use with flatbeds for winding and storing a strap, comprising:
a strap winding assembly having a rotating element (Williams - 52) to drive winding of the strap;
a bracket (Williams - 12) configured for connecting the strap winding assembly and the flatbed to support the strap winding assembly with respect to the flatbed;
and a needle (Williams – 16) removably mounted to the rotating element (Williams - 52) and being configured to receive the strap, such that rotation of the rotating element (Williams - 52) causes rotation of the needle (Williams - 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
541
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Williams fails to specify:
for storing the strap, the strap is unwound from a drum on the flatbed and wound up onto the needle, the wound-up strap being removable from the needle for storage; or
for using the strap on the flatbed, an end of the wound-up strap is mounted to the drum such that rotation of the drum enables winding of the strap back onto the drum.
Van Benthem et al (US 2013/0206895) teaches a system for use with flatbeds for winding and storing a strap, comprising:
a strap winding assembly having a rotating element (Van Benthem - at least 8) to drive winding of the strap;
and a needle (Van Benthem - 3) removably mounted to the rotating element (Van Benthem - at least 8) and being configured to receive to the strap, such that rotation of the rotating element (Van Benthem - at least 8) causes rotation of the needle (Van Benthem - 3) so that:
for storing the strap, the strap is (capable of being) unwound from a drum on the flatbed and would up onto the needle (Van Benthem - 3), the wound-up strap being removable from the needle (Van Benthem - 3) for storage (At least Paragraph [0007]); and
for using the strap on the flatbed, an end of the wound-up strap is mounted to the drum such that rotation of the drum enables winding of the strap back onto the drum. (Though a drum is not explicitly disclosed, Paragraph [0007] discusses wherein the strap, or ‘wound belt’, may be “taken out of the receiving space again”. This is understood to anticipate the reapplication to a drum, spool or similar ratchet system that is commonly found in the art.)
PNG
media_image2.png
727
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Williams as taught by Van Benthem to include a system that would allow the removal of the strap from the needle for storage of the strap, for the expected benefit of providing neat, tidy and efficient storage of the straps for future use, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
(Claim 13 is considered to be commensurate in scope to claim 1.)
As concerns claim 2, the combination discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the needle (Williams - 16) comprises a proximal portion (Williams – 24) configured to receive and engage part of the rotating element (Williams - 52), and a distal portion (Williams – 18) extending from the proximal portion and configured to engage with the strap.
(Claim 14 is considered to be commensurate in scope to claim 2.)
As concerns claim 5, the combination discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the needle (Williams - 16) includes a coupling mechanism (Williams – inner bore of end 24 which allows for insertion of 52, and engagement of element 56 into hole 26) for coupling to the rotating element (Williams - 52) of the strap winding assembly.
(Claim 17 is considered to be commensurate in scope to claim 5.)
As concerns claim 6, the combination discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the coupling mechanism includes a cavity (Williams – inner bore of collar 24) that has a shape corresponding to that of the rotating element (Williams - 52).
(Claim 18 is considered to be commensurate in scope to claim 6.)
As concerns claim 7, the combination discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the needle (Williams - 16) is slotted over the rotating element (Williams - 52) such that an engagement arm (Williams – 56) of the rotating element (Williams - 52) fits within the cavity, such that when the engagement arm is rotated the needle (Williams - 16) rotates accordingly.
(Claim 19 is considered to be commensurate in scope to claim 7.)
As concerns claim 8, the combination discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the needle (Williams - 16) has a strap connection part (Williams - 20) to which the end of the strap is connected at the beginning of the winding.
As concerns claim 9, the combination discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the strap connection part includes a slot (Williams – 20) through which the end of the strap can fit. (Williams – Figure 1)
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Van Benthem and further in view of Bujold et al (US 10,088,016) and LeBrun (US 11,479,160).
As concerns claim 3, the combination discloses the system of claim 1, however fails to specify wherein the bracket (Williams - 12) comprises a peg that is configured to fit into a corresponding hole in the flatbed such that a drill (Williams – 60) mountable to the strap winding assembly faces perpendicular to an edge of the flatbed and the needle (Williams - 16) points parallel to the edge of the flatbed.
Bujold et al (US 10,088,016) discloses such a system comprising a drill mountable to the strap winding assembly facing perpendicular to an edge of the flatbed with a rotating element pointing parallel to the edge of the flatbed. (Figure 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Bujold to include a system with a perpendicular drill and parallel rotating element, for the expected benefit of allowing more efficient engagement of a hand drill to the rotating element, without potentially obstructing a connection by requiring the parallel arrangement of Williams, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
LeBrun (US 11,479,160) further teaches wherein a bracket (LeBrun – 20, 30) comprises a peg (LeBrun – 32, 34, 36) that is configured to fit into a corresponding hole (LeBrun – 15) in the flatbed (LeBrun – Figure 7) for the purpose of securing a strap winding device to a trailer.
PNG
media_image3.png
484
604
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the combination as taught by LeBrun to include a bracket comprising a peg that would allow a spaced orientation of the strap winding device from the side of the trailer, for the expected benefit of providing substantial room to operate the strap winding device while securely supporting it during use, obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
(Claim 15 is understood to be commensurate in scope with claim 3.)
Claims 10, 11, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, Van Benthem, and further in view of Haynes (US 10,000,148).
As concerns claim 10, the combination discloses the system of claim 8, however fails to specify wherein the slot is defined as an elongated opening defined in between two parts that have opposed inner surfaces that face each other. (Williams – Figure 1 illustrates such an elongated opening.)
The combination however fails to specify wherein the slot is defined as an elongated opening defined in between two prongs.
Haynes (US 10,000,148) however teaches wherein a slot (32) is defined between two prongs (two portions of 12 shown in Figure 1 that allow for the insertion of a strap).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Haynes to include the use of prongs as part of the needle, for the expected benefit of easier strap removal for storage, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
PNG
media_image4.png
794
841
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As concerns claim 11, the combination discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the prongs have outer surfaces that are cylindrical, each being a half cylinder, while the inner surfaces are generally flat. (Haynes – Figure 1 shows such a half-cylinder outer surface and generally flat inner surfaces)
As concerns claim 12, the combination discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the prongs have a length to define the slot to have a length that is generally the same or greater than the width of a strap. (Haynes – Figure 11 illustrates wherein the slot length between the prongs is able to fit the width of the strap.)
(Claim 20 is considered to be commensurate in scope to claims 10, 11 and 12.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As concerns claims 4 and 16, the bracket including a main plate section, two side wall sections that extend down from two edges of the main plate section and which are separated by a gap, and a connector which is configured as at least one finger plate that extend into corresponding openings in the strap winding assembly was not found to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
LeBrun (US 11,479,160) illustrates a bracket which attaches to the flatbed and supports the strap winding system however provides no need or configuration for the claimed details of the bracket.
Henderson (US 10,280,037) and Parks (US 7,410,336) also both illustrate the use of handheld power tools for the winding of straps, however neither discloses or anticipates the use of such a bracket for engagement with the strap winding assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L LEMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/AARON L LEMBO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679