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 .
Response to Amendment
The submission entered April 9, 2026 in response to an Office Action mailed January 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-41 are pending. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 21-41 is/are newly presented.
The objections to the drawings presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112 as presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-41 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.
However, it is noted that applicant argues features which are not claimed. Specifically, at Page 8 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues “Claim 21 also recites” a winch assembly with a winch drum, a first cable, and a second cable; the first cable attached to the first elongated assembly; the second cable attached to the brake assembly; the winch drum configured to move the assemblies relative to each other via the cables.” However, claim 21 fails to recite “the first cable attached to the first elongated assembly; the second cable attached to the brake assembly; the winch drum configured to move the assemblies relative to each other via the cables”. It appears applicant is arguing disclosed features rather than claimed features.
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.
Claims 21-41 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.
Regarding Claim(s) 21, the claim recites “the brake assembly including a plurality of brake features mounted to the second elongated assembly” and “the brake assembly, which is supported by the first elongated assembly” and “the brake assembly further comprises: a grooved elongated member mounted to the second elongated assembly…a brake plate supported by the first elongated assembly”. The claim language is unclear as to what elongated assembly is connected to the brake assembly. For example, it is unclear how the brake assembly can be supported by the first elongated assembly while features, such as the slots, are mounted to the second assembly.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “plurality of brake features”, and the claim also recites “serially positioned slots” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding Claim(s) 22, the claim appears redundant. Claim 22 sets forth “spaced apart engagement features fixedly mounted to the second elongated assembly, and the brake assembly further includes a complementary engagement feature fixedly mounted to the first elongated assembly”. However, claim 21 has already recited serially positioned slots, which would be spaced apart engagement features, a brake plate, which would be a complementary engagement feature. Therefore, it is unclear as to what further limitations claim 22 is attempting to set forth. It appears claim 22 is attempting to set forth the broader “engagement features” after claim 21 has already set forth the narrower “slots”. It appears claim 22 is attempting to set forth the broader “complementary engagement feature” after claim 21 has already set forth the narrower “brake plate”
Regarding Claim(s) 23, the claim lacks antecedent basis for ‘the spaced apart engagement features”, which is not recited in claim 21. Further, the claim language “a plurality of serially spaced slots formed along an elongated member mounted to the second elongated assembly” is unclear as to whether or not the claim is setting forth slots and an elongated member in addition to those recited in claim 21.
Regarding Claim(s) 24, the claim lacks antecedent basis for “the complementary engagement feature”, which is not recited in claim 21 nor claim 23. Further, the language “the spaced-apart engagement features include spaced-apart grooves” renders the claim indefinite because claim 21 has already set forth slots and it is unclear what additional structure is being set forth. Is the instant claim setting forth grooves in addition to the slots? At Paragraph 43 of applicant’s specification (dated February 9, 2024), the specification discloses “catching slots (such as the grooves (302A, 302B…)”, which would imply that the terms “slots” and “grooves” are interchangeable.
Regarding Claim(s) 25, the claim lacks antecedent basis for “the complementary engagement feature”, which is not recited in claim 21 nor claim 23. Further, the language “the complementary engagement feature includes a brake plate and a spring” renders the claim indefinite because the language is unclear if additional brake plate and spring are being set forth in addition to the brake plate and spring recited in claim 21.
Regarding Claim(s) 26, the claim is indefinite because claim 21 has already set forth a grooved elongate member and claim 23 has also set forth an elongate member mounted to the second elongated assembly and it is unclear what additional structure claim 26 is attempting to set forth.
Regarding Claim(s) 27, the claim lacks antecedent basis for “the complementary engagement feature”, which is not recited in claim 21 nor claim 23. Further, claim 21 already sets forth the brake plate engaging with the slot to halt relative movement of the first elongated assembly and the second elongated assembly. Therefore, it is unclear what additional limitations are being set forth by claim 27.
Regarding Claim(s) 28, the claim lacks antecedent basis for “the complementary engagement feature”, which is not recited in claim 21 nor claim 23.
Claim 29 is indefinite because claim 21 has already set forth a grooved elongate member mounted to the second elongated assembly and it is unclear what additional structure claim 29 is attempting to set forth.
Regarding Claim(s) 30, the claim lacks antecedent basis for “the complementary engagement feature”, which is not recited in claim 21 nor claim 23.
Regarding Claim(s) 31, the claim lacks antecedent basis for “the complementary engagement feature”, which is not recited in claim 21 nor claim 23. Further, claim 31 is indefinite because the claim is attempting to set forth the broader “shaped member” after claim 21 has set forth the narrower “brake plate”.
Regarding Claim(s) 34, the claim is unclear if the “spring assembly” recited in claim 34 is in addition to the “spring assembly” recited in claim 21.
Claim 39 is indefinite because the claim lacks antecedent basis for “the spaced-apart engagement features” and “complementary engagement feature” which are not recited in claim 21 nor claim 38. Further, claim 21 has already set forth slots, which are considered interchangeable with the grooves, as described above.
Claims 22-41 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-41 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest a winch assembly supported by the second elongated assembly and including a winch drum, a first cable, and a second cable, combined with the rest of the claim language. The prior art discloses winches supported by the first elongated assembly and having only a single cable for moving a second elongated assembly relative to the first elongated assembly.
Conclusion
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 WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights