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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, specification, and drawings received on January 9th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended. Objections to the claims filed on September 25th, 2025 have been withdrawn. The 35 USC § 112(b) rejections filed on September 25th, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 9th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A note should be made that although exemplary embodiments of the prior art invention have been described, it should be understood that many variations and modifications of the basic inventive concept described, which may appear to those skilled in the art, will still fall within the spirit and scope of the exemplary embodiments of the referenced invention.
Applicant argues that the sliding carriage is absent in the Malzacher (US 4,588,142). The applicant further argues that the tiltable frame 110 of Malzacher corresponds to a main frame and not the sliding carriage. It is acknowledged that the tiltable frame 110 may be understood as the main frame. However, said tiltable frame 110 comprises a plurality of beams 204, 205, 206, and 207 which serve different purposes. In the instance of the sliding carriage, beams 204 and 207 (seen in figures 8-9 having a rectangular configuration) best depicts the sliding carriage. The presented claims focus on what the sliding carriage is shaped as and what it comprises but fails to define what is meant by sliding. For this reason, it is understood that the carriage being slidable means it is capable of sliding, or is capable to be moved along a surface or track. Nothing within the prior art prevents the beams 204 and 207 from sliding across the surface.
Applicant further argues that Malzacher fails to disclose the location of the winch being in the center of a front transverse part of the main frame. It should be noted that "front" in the claim does not avoid the reference because there is nothing in the claim to indicate which way is forward. See Ex parte Beeson (PO BdApp) 106 USPQ 150. It should also be noted that, in column 4, lines 52-60 of Malzacher, it clearly discloses that the guide assembly traverses the diamond groove shaft 30 thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to center the winch (or the guide assembly 28), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention in a manner which does not alter its operation involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Applicant further argues that figure 2 of Malzacher depicts a non-rectangular frame 10. However, the word rectangular is defined as any 2-dimensonal four-sided shape with four right angles having opposite sides which are equal in length and parallel to each other. The figure the Applicant addresses portrays a side of the entire assembly. The rectangular shape of the frame can be seen in figures 1 and 7 from a top view. Because the applicant’s claim merely states that the frame is rectangular, as long as any of the perspective views correspond to the definition of a rectangle then one skilled in the art may view it as such.
Applicant further argues Malzacher fails to show semi-closed channels of a C-shaped cross-section and there are no rollers located in the center of each support 86. It should be noted that changes in size and shape are not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IVA-B, citing In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
It is argued that the claimed invention require the C-shaped channels for the connection of the sliding carriage, however this limitation is not properly disclosed within the claims. The claims merely disclose the shape and orientation of the channel and relating elements. Furthermore, the applicant argues that supports 86 are vertically mounted to the frame 10 and therefore they cannot be used as guides for the support rollers. While this statement is true, it is once again pointed that the applicant’s claim do not require such a limitation. See MPEP 2145 VI, citing In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also MPEP 2111.01 II. It appears the Applicant is attempting to disclose wherein the support rollers are slidable within the C-shaped channels, however the limitation is not properly disclosed within the claims (evidence for this limitation can be found in page 7 of the Applicant’s specification). The claims merely disclose that there are support rollers at the center of the parallel channels which does not specify the importance of both the C-shaped channel and the support rollers in relation to said channels.
Applicant further argues that Malzacher fails to disclose a triangular boom having swivel arms and that the Office Action’s mapping of the tiltable frame 110 is inconsistent. Similarly, when taken into the side perspective view of the assembly (seen in figures 2, 9, and 10 of Malzacher) a triangular configuration of the beams 204, 205, 206, and 207 can be seen. The applicant’s claim merely states that the boom is triangular, as long as any of the perspective views correspond to the definition of a triangle then one skilled in the art may view it as such. Regarding the argument that a swivel arm is not disclosed, it should be noted that the only limitations presented within the claims are that said swivel arms are mounted in the front of the triangular boom (see argument above regarding the depiction of the orientation of front) and that the arms comprise clamping yokes. With the presented limitations, one skilled in the art may view the arms 130, 132 seen in figures 8-9 as swivel arms as they hold and control the yokes 138.
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s. However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01 subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
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 two sliding discs of claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It should be noted that the sliding discs of claim 2, while present in the figures, are required to be labeled as they are limiting features. 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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malzacher (US 4,588,142 A), in view of Maas (US 2015/0041580 A1), and in further view of Haines (US 6,612,516 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Malzacher discloses a device for supporting and operating a cable drum, equipped with a rectangular frame (Col. 6, Ln. 14-30 & Fig. 8-9, chassis 112) and a locking-release mechanism (Col. 6, Ln. 3-6, hinged top portion 102), comprising:
a sliding carriage equipped with tensioning is mounted on a main frame, wherein said sliding carriage is in shape of a rectangle (Fig. 8-9, tiltable frame 110 corresponding to a main frame and beams 204 and 207 corresponding to a sliding carriage), open on one side, which is a front part of the sliding carriage (Col. 6, Ln. 14-19 & Fig. 9 depicting a rectangular mobile carriage corresponding to the sliding carriage), in addition, the main frame is equipped with a locking-release mechanism mounted on both sides of the main frame on its longitudinal sides (Col. 4, Ln. 40-43);
in a center of a front transverse part of the main frame there is a winch connected to a drive (Col. 5, Ln.3-14 & Fig. 1 & 7, cable guide assembly 28);
in the longitudinal part, the main frame consists of two parallel channels (Fig. 1-2, vertical supports 86), and in the center of each channel of the longitudinal part of the main frame there are support rollers, which are attached to the sliding carriage mounted on the main frame (Fig. 9 depicting a wheel aligned with the center of the vertical supports 86);
a triangular boom with swivel arms is mounted in the front, open part of the sliding carriage by means of bolts (Fig. 8-9, the tiltable frame 110 is in a triangular configuration, although the fastening type is not disclosed, Malzacher does disclose attaching the frame to a trailer of sorts, in Col. 4, Ln. 1-3, as well as fastening by use of bolts for securing as in Col. 5, Ln. 34 and in Col. 7, Ln. 33, thus it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to fasten a frame with bolts);
in an upper part of each of the swivel arms of the triangular boom (Fig. 8-9, Col. 6, Ln. 44-52, lift arms 130, 132 corresponding to swivel arms), clamping yokes are mounted, equipped with mounting of a support bar secured with threaded cranks constituting a closing mechanism of the clamping yokes (Col. 6, Ln. 3-19, axle 14 corresponding to support bar, and release latches 88 corresponding to closing mechanism and further the clamping yokes secure the axle by means of teeth 92, 94 corresponding to threaded cranks as discloses in Col. 5, Ln. 56-67);
the winch is connected via a cable successively to a first tensioning roller (Fig. 1 & 7, cable guide assembly 28 & idler wheel 76) but fails to disclose the tensioning rollers being located in a rear transverse part of the main frame, a second tensioning roller located in the rear part of the sliding carriage and to a third tensioning roller located on the triangular boom. However, Maas teaches one or more tension rollers and/or tension guides (Pg. 3, ¶32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art within the effective filing date to incorporate a plurality of tensioning rollers to the tensioning system to provide an improved tensioning means. It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the tensioning rollers in a rear transverse part of the main frame, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Rearranging such elements would be suggested based off of convenience of winding and reeling direction as well as device orientation.
While Malzacher does not necessarily disclose a semi-closed channel having a C-shaped cross-section mounted upwards with the open part of the channel, it should be noted that changes in size and shape are not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IVA-B, citing In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Malzacher also fails to discloses, regarding claim 1, quadruple bearing sleeves mounted with the clamping yokes. However, Haines teaches the simple addition of bearing sleaves is obvious and known within the art (Col. 11, Ln. 58-67 & Col. 12, Ln. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated multiple bearing sleeves mounted with the clamping yokes to provide reduced friction when rotating the spool or cable.
Regarding claim 3, Malzacher discloses further comprising a triangular boom securing fixture in form of braces (C---ol. 6, Ln. 19-23, brackets 116).
Regarding claim 4, Malzacher discloses further comprising a securing fixture of the sliding carriage, which is a bolt grip in a sleeve mounted on the main frame and the sleeve in the sliding carriage (Col. 8, Ln. 33-41, clevis 174 and pin 178).
Regarding claim 5, Malzacher discloses wherein the drive is selected from a group of mechanical, electric, hydraulic or pneumatic drives (Col. 5, Ln.3-14, hydraulic motor 20).
Regarding claim 6, Malzacher discloses wherein the drive is equipped with a controller for wired or wireless control (Col. 3, Ln. 23-28).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malzacher (US 4,588,142 A), in view of Maas (US 2015/0041580 A1), in view of Haines (US 6,612,516 B1), and in further view of Larson (US 6,932,294 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Malzacher fails to disclose two sliding discs. However, Larson teaches wherein the bar comprises two sliding discs (Col. 6, Ln. 43-50, disc portion 56). While the discs of Larson are placed on a secondary axle, it is understood the purpose of the disc is similar to that of the claimed invention wherein a sort of guide or break is provided to the rotating element. Thus, it would only take routine skill in the art to position the discs on the axle of the driven element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated two sliding guides to the support bar to provide breaking and guiding means.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERMIA E MELIKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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.
ERMIA E. MELIKA
Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654