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 Arguments
The objection to claims 1, 14, 17 has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to the claims which have rendered the objection moot.
Applicant’s arguments, beginning page 8, have been fully considered. Applicants arguments are directed toward new claim limitations which have not yet been considered. These new limitations are taught by previously-cited Latoria (US8256745). Latoria teaches a portable hoist including a frame (frame 12) comprising a top wall (top 18) and a pair of side walls (first side 14 and opposite side 16, Fig. 2), the frame configured to support the material handling device between the side walls (the frame 12 supports the hoist 10 including a drum 24, ratchet wheel 34, shaft 44, drive 90, and pawl system 60 via respective bores and openings), the frame having an opening (opening 140, col. 4, lines 43-45) defined therein in the top wall (see Fig. 2).
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, beginning page 11, with respect to the rejection of claims 4-5, 7, 14-16 are directed toward the amendments regarding the frame and the prior art of Herrmann and are believed to have been addressed. The limitations are taught by Latoria and applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, beginning page 12, with respect to the rejection of claims 4-5, 7, 14-16 are directed toward the amendments regarding the frame and the prior art of Herrmann and are believed to have been addressed. The limitations are taught by Latoria and applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1-3, 6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann et al. (US11579010) in view of previously-cited Latoria (US8256745).
Claim 1: Herrmann teaches a load sensing apparatus for use with a material handling device, the load sensing apparatus, comprising: a frame (a hoist housing 140) having an opening in the top wall (the hook 110 extends through the suspension 120 and into the housing 140; the suspension 120 may be integral with the housing 140 as a single unitary part; col. 6, lines 61-end); a top hook (hook 410) having an opening defined therein between a tip and a body portion and having a shank extending from the body portion (see Fig. 20); at least a portion of the shank passing through the opening in the top wall of the frame (the suspension 420 includes a hole where the hook 410 extends through the suspension 420 to engage the load cell assembly 450); a fastener (nut 430) attached to the shank on a side of the frame opposite from the opening in the hook (the nut 430 is on the opposite side of the suspension 420 than the hook 410 and the opening thereof); and, a force sensor (load cell assembly 450) disposed between the fastener and the top wall of the frame (see Fig. 20).
Herrmann fails to teach a frame comprising a top wall and a pair of side walls, the frame configured to support the material handling device between the side walls, the frame having an opening defined therein in the top wall.
However, Latoria teaches a portable hoist including a frame (frame 12) comprising a top wall (top 18) and a pair of side walls (first side 14 and opposite side 16, Fig. 2), the frame configured to support the material handling device between the side walls (the frame 12 supports the hoist 10 including a drum 24, ratchet wheel 34, shaft 44, drive 90, and pawl system 60 via respective bores and openings), the frame having an opening (opening 140, col. 4, lines 43-45) defined therein in the top wall (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a frame as taught by Latoria with the device of Herrmann for the obvious benefit of supporting hoist elements in the space created by the frame (Latoria, col. 3, lines 11-13).
Claim 2: Herrmann in view of Latoria teaches the apparatus as forth in claim 1. Herrmann teaches a shoulder formed between a body of the hook and the shank (see annotated Fig. 20, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
527
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: Herrmann in view of Latoria teaches the apparatus as forth in claim 2. Herrmann teaches wherein the shank extends through the opening in the frame (suspension 420) such that the shoulder engages with a surface of the frame (see annotated fig. 20, above).
Claim 6: Herrmann in view of Latoria teaches the apparatus as forth in claim 1. Herrmann teaches wherein the material handling device is a chain hoist (chain hoist, Title, col. 6, lines 42-48).
Claim 8: Herrmann in view of Latoria teaches the apparatus as forth in claim 1. Herrmann teaches wherein the force sensor (load cell assembly 450) has an opening defined therein for receiving the shank therethrough (see Figs. 20-21, the hook 410 extends through the opening in the suspension 420 and is engaged with the nut 430).
Claim 9: Herrmann in view of Latoria teaches the apparatus as forth in claim 1. Herrmann teaches wherein the force sensor (load cell assembly 450) is ring shaped (see Fig. 21).
Claim 10: Herrmann in view of Latoria teaches the apparatus as forth in claim 1. Herrmann teaches wherein the shank on the top hook has a set of external threads disposed thereon (col. 11, lines 7-19: the nut 430 may be threaded onto the hook).
Claims 4-5, 7, 12, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Latoria further in view of applicant-cited Hawkins et al. (US20150123056).
Claim 4: Herrmann in view of Latoria teaches the apparatus as forth in claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the material handling device is a strap hoist with a pawl and ratchet.
However, Hawkins teaches strap hoist with a pawl and ratchet [0034], Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the pawl and ratchet of Hawkins with the device of Herrmann in view of Latoria in order to maintain the hoist in a desired position during use (Hawkins [0003]).
Claim 5: Herrmann in view of Latoria teaches the apparatus as forth in claim 1, but fails to teach a display configured to receive and display a measurement from the force sensor, the display mounted on the load sensing apparatus.
However, Hawkins teaches a display (load gauge 41) configured to receive and display a measurement from the force sensor ([0043] The hoist 10 further includes a load indicator in the form of a load gauge 41.), the display mounted on the load sensing apparatus (the hoist includes the load gauge 41, therefore it is understood to be attached to/mounted on the load sensing apparatus in a position visible to a user [0066]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the display of Hawkins with the device of Herrmann in view of Latoria in order to indicate a historic maximum load to which the hoist 10 was subjected as well as provide an indication of real-time loading (Hawkins [0043]).
Claim 7: Herrmann in view of Latoria teaches the apparatus as forth in claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the load sensing apparatus further comprises a load hook attached to the material handling device.
Hawkins teaches a load hook (hook 18, Fig. 1) attached to the material handing device (hoist 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a load hook as taught by Hawkins with the device of Herrmann in order to connect the load (Hawkins [0031]).
Claim 12: Herrmann in view of Latoria in view of Hawkins teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 7. Hermann teaches wherein the force sensor measures the force being applied to the load hook (col. 7, lines 1-5: the device of Herrmann is such that the load imposed on the chain 190 and the load through the suspension 120 and to the hook 110 are in alignment. Therefore, the force of the suspended load is measured at the load cell assembly 450).
Claim 14: Herrmann teaches a load sensing apparatus for use with a material handling device (chain hoist), the load sensing apparatus, comprising: a frame (a hoist housing 140) having an opening in the top wall (the hook 110 extends through the suspension 120 and into the housing 140; the suspension 120 may be integral with the housing 140 as a single unitary part; col. 6, lines 61-end); a top hook (hook 410) having an opening defined therein between a tip and a body portion and having a shank extending from the body portion (see Fig. 20), the top hook having a shoulder formed between a body of the top hook and the shank (see annotated Fig. 20, above, with respect to the rejection of claim 2), the shank extending through the opening in the wall (the suspension 420 includes a hole where the hook 410 extends through the suspension 420 to engage the load cell assembly 450); at least a portion of the shank passing through the opening in the wall of the frame (the suspension 420 includes a hole where the hook 410 extends through the wall and suspension 420 to engage the load cell assembly 450); a fastener (nut 430) attached to the shank on a side of the wall opposite from the opening in the hook (the nut 430 is on the opposite side of the suspension 420 than the hook 410 and the opening thereof); a force sensor (load cell assembly 450) disposed between the fastener and the wall (see Fig. 20).
Herrmann fails to teach a frame comprising a top wall and a pair of side walls, the frame configured to support the material handling device between the side walls, the frame having an opening defined therein in the top wall.
However, Latoria teaches a portable hoist including a frame (frame 12) comprising a top wall (top 18) and a pair of side walls (first side 14 and opposite side 16, Fig. 2), the frame configured to support the material handling device between the side walls (the frame 12 supports the hoist 10 including a drum 24, ratchet wheel 34, shaft 44, drive 90, and pawl system 60 via respective bores and openings), the frame having an opening (opening 140, col. 4, lines 43-45) defined therein in the top wall (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a frame as taught by Latoria with the device of Herrmann for the obvious benefit of supporting hoist elements in the space created by the frame (Latoria, col. 3, lines 11-13).
Herrmann in view of Latoria fails to teach a display configured to receive and display a measurement from the force sensor, the display mounted on the load sensing apparatus.
However, Hawkins teaches a display (load gauge 41) configured to receive and display a measurement from the force sensor ([0043] The hoist 10 further includes a load indicator in the form of a load gauge 41.), the display mounted on the load sensing apparatus (the hoist includes the load gauge 41, therefore it is understood to be attached to/mounted on the load sensing apparatus in a position visible to a user [0066]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the display of Hawkins with the device of Herrmann in view of Latoria in order to indicate a historic maximum load to which the hoist 10 was subjected as well as provide an indication of real-time loading (Hawkins [0043]).
Claim 15: Herrmann in view of Latoria further in view of Hawkins teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 14. Herrmann teaches wherein the shank extends through the opening in the wall of the frame such that the shoulder engages with the wall (the suspension 420 includes top wall (see Fig. 20, the suspension 420 has a top wall) and a hole where the hook 410 extends through the wall and suspension 420 and the shoulder engages the top wall, see annotated Fig. 2, above).
Claim 16: Herrmann in view of Latoria further in view of Hawkins teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 14. Herrmann in view of Latoria fails to teach wherein the material handling device is a strap hoist with a pawl and ratchet.
However, Hawkins teaches strap hoist with a pawl and ratchet [0034], Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the pawl and ratchet of Hawkins with the device of Herrmann in view of Latoria in order to maintain the hoist in a desired position during use (Hawkins [0003]).
Claims 13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Latoria further in view of Hawkins further in view of Peaker et al. (US20210275367).
Claim 13: Herrmann in view of Latoria teaches the apparatus as forth in claim 1, but fails to teach a control system configured for limits that trigger an alert once a predetermined force level has been detected by the load sensing apparatus.
However, Hawkins teaches the use of an audible or visual alarm [0063].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an alarm as taught by Hawkins, with the device of Herrmann in view of Latoria in order to provide an additional safety feature including a historic load record so a user won't use the device if it has been overloaded in past uses-prestart check (Hawkins[0069]).
Herrmann in view of Latoria in view of Hawkins fails to teach a control system configured for user programmable limits.
However, Peaker teaches a hoist and a control box 116 which is programmable in order to change the thresholds or functionality.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a programmable limit, as taught by Peaker, with the device of Herrmann in view of Latoria further in view of Hawkins in order to increase the functionality of the device (Peaker [0140]).
Claim 17: Herrmann teaches a load sensing apparatus for use with a material handling device, the load sensing apparatus, comprising: a frame (a hoist housing 140) configured to support the material handling device, the load sensing device having an opening in the top wall (the hook 110 extends through the suspension 120 and into the housing 140; the suspension 120 may be integral with the housing 140 as a single unitary part; col. 6, lines 61-end); a top hook (hook 410) having an opening defined therein between a tip and a body portion and having a shank extending from the body portion (see Fig. 20), the top hook having a shoulder formed between a body of the top hook and the shank (see annotated Fig. 20, above, with respect to the rejection of claim 2); at least a portion of the shank passing through the opening in the top wall of the frame (the suspension 420 includes a hole where the hook 410 extends through the suspension 420 to engage the load cell assembly 450); a fastener (nut 430) attached to the shank on a side of the frame opposite from the opening in the hook (the nut 430 is on the opposite side of the suspension 420 than the hook 410 and the opening thereof); and, a force sensor (load cell assembly 450) disposed between the fastener and the top wall of the frame (see Fig. 20).
Herrmann fails to teach a frame comprising a top wall and a pair of side walls, the frame configured to support the material handling device between the side walls, the frame having an opening defined therein in the top wall.
However, Latoria teaches a portable hoist including a frame (frame 12) comprising a top wall (top 18) and a pair of side walls (first side 14 and opposite side 16, Fig. 2), the frame configured to support the material handling device between the side walls (the frame 12 supports the hoist 10 including a drum 24, ratchet wheel 34, shaft 44, drive 90, and pawl system 60 via respective bores and openings), the frame having an opening (opening 140, col. 4, lines 43-45) defined therein in the top wall (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a frame as taught by Latoria with the device of Herrmann for the obvious benefit of supporting hoist elements in the space created by the frame (Latoria, col. 3, lines 11-13).
Herrmann in view of Latoria fails to teach a display configured to receive and display a measurement from the force sensor, the display mounted on the load sensing apparatus; a load hook attached to the material handling device; and, a control system configured for limits that trigger an alert once a predetermined force level has been detected by the load sensing apparatus.
However, Hawkins teaches a display (load gauge 41) configured to receive and display a measurement from the force sensor ([0043] The hoist 10 further includes a load indicator in the form of a load gauge 41.), the display mounted on the load sensing apparatus (the hoist includes the load gauge 41, therefore it is understood to be attached to/mounted on the load sensing apparatus in a position visible to a user [0066]); a load hook (hook 18, Fig. 1) attached to the material handing device (hoist 10); an audible or visual alarm [0063]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the display of Hawkins with the device of Herrmann in view of Latoria in order to indicate a historic maximum load to which the hoist 10 was subjected as well as provide an indication of real-time loading (Hawkins [0043]).
Herrmann in view of Latoria further in view of Hawkins fails to teach a control system configured for user programmable limits.
However, Peaker teaches a hoist and a control box 116 which is programmable in order to change the thresholds or functionality.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a programmable limit, as taught by Peaker, with the device of Herrmann in view of Latoria further in view of Hawkins in order to increase the functionality of the device (Peaker [0140]).
Claim 18: Herrmann in view of Latoria further in view of Hawkins and Peaker teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 17. Hawkins teaches wherein the control system is programmed to compare a load weight calculated by the force sensor and a rated weight capacity (maximum load rating) for the material handling device ([0063] It also possible to incorporate an audible or visual alarm for provide a warning should the maximum load rating of the hoist be exceeded. [0069] the load gauge with an overload dial and/or an overload relief with audible and visual alarm provides an additional safety feature including a historic load record (a user won't use the device if it has been overloaded in past uses-prestart check).
Claim 19: Herrmann in view of Latoria further in view of Hawkins and Peaker teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 17. Herrmann teaches wherein the shank extends through the opening in the top wall of the frame such that the shoulder engages with the top wall (the suspension 420 includes top wall (see Fig. 20, the suspension 420 has a top wall) and a hole where the hook 410 extends through the wall and suspension 420 and the shoulder engages the top wall, see annotated Fig. 2, above).
Claim 20: Herrmann in view of Latoria further in view of Hawkins and Peaker teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 17. Herrmann in view of Latoria fails to teach wherein the material handling device is a strap hoist with a pawl and ratchet.
However, Hawkins teaches strap hoist with a pawl and ratchet [0034], Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the pawl and ratchet of Hawkins with the device of Herrmann in view of Latoria in order to maintain the hoist in a desired position during use (Hawkins [0003]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Latoria further in view of Raines, Jr. et al. (US11390493).
Claim 11: Herrmann in view of Latoria teaches the apparatus as forth in claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the top lock has a safety latch disposed thereon.
However, Raines teaches a safety latch for a hook (Title) wherein the hook assembly 10 including a hook 11 and a safety latch 40.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a safety latch, as taught by Raines, with the device of Herrmann in view of Latoria in order to meet OSHA safety standards (col. 1, lines 11-18).
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 JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 7/28/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights