DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB-2106520.6, filed on 07 May 2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 16 is 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. The phrases “preferably” and “desirably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation of “between four and ten of the ratchet teeth”, and the claim also recites “the plurality of ratchet teeth comprise four of the ratchet teeth.” For the purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted using the broadest limitation of “between four and ten of the ratchet teeth.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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)(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.
9. Claims 1-14, 18-19, 21 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Facey et al. (US 7311484 B2) .
Regarding claim 1, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly comprising: a ratchet spool (60; Fig 10) rotatable about a principal axis, said ratchet spool having a main part (59; Fig 24) and a plurality of ratchet teeth (60; Fig 24) arranged circumferentially around the main part; a tensioning arrangement (39; Fig 10) for tensioning an elongate article (13; Fig 10); a drive arrangement (19; Fig 10 and 28) to engage the ratchet teeth of the ratchet spool and rotate the ratchet spool in a driving direction about said principal axis to apply tension to the elongate article; and a tension limitation member (53; Fig 10) between the ratchet spool and the tensioning arrangement to limit the tension applied to the elongate article.”
With respect to claim 2, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly according to claim 1, wherein the tension limitation member (53; Fig 10) comprises a flexible elongate linkage (Col. 3, Lines 1-5).”
In reference to claim 3, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly according to claim 1, wherein the tension limitation member (53; Fig 10) is movable between a release condition (Col. 9 line 63- Col. 10 line 7) and a tension applying condition (col 7 line 49-58) whereby, in said tension applying condition, a predetermined maximum tension is applied to the elongate article (13; Fig 10), and wherein the tension limitation member is moved to the tension applying condition when the ratchet spool is rotated in the driving direction (col 3 lines 28-50).”
Regarding claim 4, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly according to claim 1, comprising a transmission arrangement (53; Fig 10) [Same label as the tension limitation member because the specification discloses “A tension limitation member in the form of a flexible elongate linkage 53 extends between the ratchet spool 59 and the slotted member 37, thereby linking the ratchet spool 59 to the slotted member 37. The linkage 53 also acts as a transmission arrangement to transmit the driving force on the ratchet spool 59 to the slotted member 37”] between the ratchet spool (60; Fig 10) and the tensioning arrangement (39; Fig 10), wherein the ratchet spool has a first attaching formation to attach the transmission arrangement to the ratchet spool, and the tensioning arrangement has a second attaching formation to attach the transmission arrangement to the tensioning arrangement (col 8 lines 9-16).”
With respect to claim 5, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly according to claim 4, wherein the first attaching formation comprises a first annular groove formation (58; Fig 24) defined by the main part (59; Fig 24), the tension limitation member (53; Fig 10) being received in the first annular groove formation when the ratchet spool is rotated in the driving direction (col 8 lines 9-30).”
Regarding claim 6, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly according to claim 4, wherein the first attaching formation (58; Fig 24) extends circumferentially around the main part (59; Fig 24), and the tension limitation member (53; Fig 10) is wound around the first attaching formation when the ratchet spool is rotated in the driving direction (col 8 lines 9-30).”
With respect to claim 7, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly according to claim 4, wherein the second attaching formation (39; Fig 10) comprises a second annular groove formation (42; Fig 10), the tension limitation member (53; Fig 10) extending around the second annular groove formation when the tension limitation member is in the release condition (col 8 lines 9-30).”
In reference to claim 8, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly according to claim 4, wherein the tension limitation member (53; Fig 10) is fully unwound from the second attaching formation (39; Fig 10) when the tensioning arrangement is in the tension applying condition (col 8 lines 32-49).”
Regarding claim 9, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly according to claim 4, wherein the first attaching formation (58; Fig 24) includes a first bore (57; Fig 24) defined by the ratchet spool (59; Fig 24), the first bore opening into the first annular groove formation, and an end region of the tension limitation member being received in the first bore to attach the tension limitation member to the ratchet spool (col 8 lines 9-30).”
With respect to claim 10, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly according to claim 4, wherein the second attaching formation (42; Fig 15) comprises a second bore (55; Fig 15) defined by the tensioning arrangement (39; Fig 10), the bore opening into the second annular groove formation, and an end region of the tension limitation member being received in the second bore to attach the tension limitation member to the tensioning arrangement (col 8 lines 9-30).”
Regarding claim 11, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly according to claim 4, wherein the ratchet spool (60; Fig 10) is drivable in the driving direction to fully unwind the tension limitation member (53; Fig 10) from the tensioning arrangement (39; Fig 10) and, when so unwound, further driving of the ratchet spool causes tension to be applied to the tension limitation member, preventing further rotation of the ratchet spool (col 8 lines 9-30).”
With respect to claim 12, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly according to claim 4, wherein the tension limitation member (53; Fig 10) is of a length predetermined to limit (col 2 line 66- col 3 line 21) the extent to which the drive arrangement can rotate the ratchet spool (60; Fig 10), the predetermined length of the tension limitation member being permitting only a predetermined number of rotations of the ratchet spool (col 2 lines 19-27).”
Regarding claim 13, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly according to claim 12, wherein the tension limitation member (53; Fig 10) is fully unwound from the second attaching formation (39; Fig 10) after said predetermined number of rotations of the ratchet spool (60; Fig 10), and tension is applied to the tension limitation member, thereby preventing further rotation of the ratchet spool (col 8 lines 9-30).”
With respect to claim 14, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly according to claim 12, wherein the predetermined length of the tension limitation member (53; Fig 10) is selected such that said predetermined number of rotations of the ratchet spool (60; Fig 10) drives the tensioning arrangement (39; Fig 10) a predetermined number of rotations of the tensioning arrangement (col 2 lines 19-27).”
With respect to claim 18, as interpreted in section 6. of this office action, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly according to claim wherein each ratchet tooth is spaced from adjacent ratchet teeth (Fig 28) by a distance such that when the tension limitation member (53; Fig 10) is fully unwound from the tensioning arrangement (39; Fig 10), tension is applied to the tension limitation member, thereby preventing further rotation (col 8 lines 31-49) of the ratchet spool (60; Fig 10).”
Regarding claim 19, as interpreted in section 6. of this office action, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly according to claim comprising ratchet arrangement (60; Fig 10) having an operating lever (19; Fig 10), and the ratchet arrangement comprising a drive pawl (72; Fig 28) to engage the ratchet teeth, the operating lever being operable to effect movement of the drive pawl into engagement with the ratchet teeth (col 8 lines 31-49).”
With respect to claim 21, Facey et al. discloses “A winding assembly according to claim 2, wherein the operating lever member (19; Fig 10) is movable from an inoperative position to an operative position, movement of the operating lever from the inoperative position to the operative position causing the ratchet arrangement to engage one of the ratchet teeth members (col 8 lines 31-49) and rotate the ratchet spool member (60; Fig 10).”
In reference to claim 24, as interpreted in section 6. of this office action, Facey et al. discloses “A lid comprising: a body; an elongate article (13; Fig 10) within the body, the elongate article being movable between a retracted condition in which the elongate article is retracted within the body, and an extended condition in which the elongate article extends from the body (col 1 lines 12-23); and a winding assembly as claimed in any preceding claim operable on the elongate article.”
Regarding claim 25, Facey et al. discloses “A method of using a winding assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the transmission arrangement (53; Fig 10) comprises the tension limitation member (53; Fig 10) [Same label as the tension limitation member because the specification states “A tension limitation member in the form of a flexible elongate linkage 53 extends between the ratchet spool 59 and the slotted member 37, thereby linking the ratchet spool 59 to the slotted member 37. The linkage 53 also acts as a transmission arrangement to transmit the driving force on the ratchet spool 59 to the slotted member 37”]; the method comprising: driving the ratchet spool (60; Fig 10) to fully unwind the tension limitation member from the tensioning arrangement (39; Fig 10) whereby, when so unwound, further driving of the ratchet spool causes tension to be applied to the tension limitation member, thereby preventing further rotation of the ratchet spool (col 8 lines 32-49).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Facey et al. (US 7311484 B2) and Locantro (US 5324063 A).
Regarding claim 16, as interpreted in section 4. of this office action, Facey et al. teaches a ratchet spool with ratchet teeth (60; Fig 10).
However, Facey et al. fails to teach a ratchet spool containing between four and ten teeth. The ratchet spool of this art contains twelve teeth.
Locantro teaches a ratchet (19; Fig 9) spool (29; Fig 9) that contains only four teeth (22; Fig 9).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Facey et al. and Locantro with a reasonable expectation of success for a more durable ratcheting mechanism that can endure more load under extreme torque.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ROBERT DIGIOVANNANTONIO whose telephone number is (571)272-4526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 a.m. to 5 p.m..
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/D.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612