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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/20/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the details of claim 11 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. That is, the combination of a so-called “prevention unit” (see instant 300) together in the same embodiment as a so-called “rotation restriction and releasing portion” (see instant 402). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “rotation restricting and releasing portion” in claim 4; “pressing and releasing portion” in claim 7; “operation portion” in claim 8; “attachment portion” in claim 10; and “prevention unit,” “biasing unit,” “releasing unit” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2020019638 A (hereinafter “Ogura”).
Regarding claim 1 Ogura discloses a method for climbing and descending using an ascender (1), the ascender (1) including a differential reduction drive (RD, see annotated fig. below) that includes an input shaft (7) configured to be driven by a rotary power tool (see paragraph 6) and an output shaft (8) coupled to a pulley (20) allowing a rope (110) to be wound, reduces a forward rotational speed (i.e. reduction gearing 5 reduces the relative speed from 7 to 8) applied to the input shaft (7), and transmits the reduced forward rotational speed to the output shaft (8),the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
570
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
driving the input shaft (7) by the power tool (see paragraph 6) and rotating the pulley (20) forward, in a state in which one end side of the rope (110) is located in a high position (e.g. see position of rope in fig. 16) to ensure a fulcrum, the rope (110) is wound from an inlet side to an outlet side (see fig. 16) of the pulley (20) of the ascender (1), a weight of a user (see par. 56) is supported by the ascender (1), and the rotary power tool (see paragraph 6) is coupled to the input shaft (7), to move the rope (110) from the inlet side to the outlet side (e.g. see fig. 16) of the pulley (20) and to ascend the user (par. 56); and
rotating the pulley (20) reversely to descend the user in a state in which the rotary power tool (see paragraph 6) is detached from the input shaft (7)
(see paragraph 40:
“when it is desired to release the limitation by the limiting means 60 in a state where a tensile force is applied to the inlet side of the suspension rope 110 (140, 141) and move the suspension rope 110 (140, 141) from the inlet portion 32 to the outside, by winding and hooking the outlet-side rope 110a (140a, 14 la) around the hook portions 80 and 81 in advance, it is possible to prevent the suspension rope 110 (140, 141) from suddenly moving in the opposite direction when the limiting means 60 is released. In addition, it is also possible to apply a friction brake by moving while sliding on the latching portions 80 and 81.”
),
wherein the input shaft (7) of the ascender (1) is provided with a one-way clutch portion (60) that allows a forward rotation (counterclockwise in fig. 10) and prevents a reverse rotation (clockwise in fig. 10), wherein the forward rotation of the pulley (20) is performed by restricting rotation of the one-way clutch portion (60) about the input shaft (7) and driving the input shaft (7) to rotate forward in a climbing direction by the rotary power tool (see paragraph 6), and
wherein the reverse rotation of the pulley (20) is performed by releasing the rotation restriction of the one-way clutch portion (60) about the input shaft (7) and allowing the pulley (20) and the reduction drive (RD) to rotate reversely (see par. 40) by a tension generated in an inlet-side rope (110) to which the weight of the user is applied (see par. 40).
Regarding claim 3 Ogura discloses the above ascender, and further discloses wherein rotation of the one-way clutch portion (60) about the input shaft (7) is restricted by being applied with a brake (ratchet), and rotation restriction about the input shaft (7) is released by releasing the brake (ratchet).
Regarding claim 4 Ogura discloses an ascender comprising:
a differential reduction drive (RD, see annotated figure below) that includes an input shaft (7) configured to be driven by a rotary power tool (see paragraph 41) and an output shaft (8) coupled to a pulley (20) allowing a rope (110) to be wound around, reduces a forward rotational speed (i.e. reduction gearing 5 reduces the relative speed from 7 to 8) of the input shaft (7), and transmits the reduced forward rotational speed to the output shaft (8);
PNG
media_image1.png
570
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a one-way clutch portion (60) detachably or undetachably attached to the input shaft (7), allowing forward rotation of the input shaft (7), and preventing reverse rotation (see par. 18); and
a rotation restricting and releasing portion (61) configured to restrict and release rotation (see par. 18) of the one-way clutch portion (60) about an axis of the input shaft (7).
Regarding claim 6 Ogura discloses the above ascender, and further discloses wherein the rotation restricting and releasing portion (61) includes a brake mechanism (i.e. ratchet and pawl; see figs. 10-11) that restricts the rotation of the one-way clutch portion (i.e. in that 62 can only turn counterclockwise in the position of fig. 10) by applying a brake (ratchet) and releases the rotation restriction by releasing the brake (as per fig. 11).
Regarding claim 10 Ogura discloses the above ascender, and further discloses a hook portion (81) allowing the rope (110) wound around the pulley (20) to be hooked.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura.
Regarding claim 11 Ogura teaches the above apparatus, but the embodiment relied upon above fails to teach the specific prevention unit set forth in claim 11. This distinction appears to represent nothing more than obvious variation, as Ogura teaches such in a separate embodiment (see 1B in fig. 21). Ogura fig. 21 teaches a prevention unit (200) configured to prevent an inlet side of the rope (110) from being drawn out to outside (par. 43), wherein the prevention unit (200) includes:
a cam (208) configured to bite into the rope (110) to prevent movement when the rope (110) is moved in a direction of being drawn out from an inlet portion (at 203) to the outside, and to allow the movement by being separated from the rope (110) when the rope (110) is moved in an opposite direction (i.e. in ascension);
a biasing unit (i.e. “spiral spring (not shown) that constantly biases the cam 208 in the clockwise direction” in par. 43) configured to bias the cam (208) in a direction of biting into the rope (110); and a releasing unit (210) configured to release the restriction by separating the cam from the rope (110).
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 prevention unit of Ogura fig. 21 (1B) to the previous embodiment of Ogura (1) with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to stop the rope during an uncontrolled descent.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura in view of US 4,974,475 (hereinafter “Lord”).
Regarding claims 2 and 5 Ogura teaches the apparatus and method above, and further teaches wherein a drive shaft (see par. 11) attached to the rotary power tool is coupled to the input shaft (7) to drive the input shaft (7). Ogura fails to teach the second one-way-clutch as set forth in claims 2 and 5. This is considered well-known in view of Lord. Lord teaches a cordless powered driver similar to the one in Ogura. Lord further teaches a drive shaft (16) is provided with a second one-way clutch portion that transmits a forward rotational force to the input shaft (16) and does not transmit a reverse rotational force (see 28, 40, 50, etc. which drive the selective ratcheting gear; see also col. 2 ll. 24-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the selectively one-way powered tool of Lord to drive the device of Ogura with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide sufficient power to the device, and to easily change direction of motion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 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 prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious the entire combination of claim limitations required by claim 7.
Specifically, Ogura fails to teach the brake band, and accompanying structure present in claim 7. Noted is US Patent No. 4,310,972 (hereinafter “Isberg”). Isberg teaches a brake drum (28) with an associated brake band (31) on an outer periphery of the brake drum (see fig. 2); and a pressing and releasing portion (70) which constantly biases the brake band (31) into engagement (see col. 3 ll. 18-25) unless released by a lever (36) being actuated.
It is noted, however, that Isberg is a chainsaw, not a winch, and certainly not an ascender/descender style winch. It is further noted that Isberg’s band brake does not selectively restrict and release the rotation of a one-way clutch (i.e. clutch 26 of Isberg engages at a predetermined speed irrespective of the band brake; see col. 2 ll. 9-13). If (arguendo) Isberg were combined with Ogawa, the combination would result in an ascender with a constantly applied brake, not a “rotation restricting and releasing portion” which restricts/releases rotation of a one-way clutch, the rotation restricting and releasing portion having a brake mechanism which restricts the rotation of the one-way clutch, the brake mechanism comprising a brake drum, and brake band.
It does not appear obvious to combine these, or any other prior art references, to reach the total combination of recitations set forth in claim 7
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such references show various forms of apparatus which comprise at least one similar feature to the present application.
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