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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 has a period [.] at the end of line 9, before the end of the claim. Claim 14, line 11 and claim 17, line 11 each include a period before the actual end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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, 6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by applicant-cited Herrmann et al. (US11579010).
Claim 1: Herrmann discloses a load sensing apparatus for use with a material handling device (chain hoist), the load sensing apparatus, comprising: a frame (suspension 420, Fig. 20) configured to support the material handling device, the frame having an opening defined therein (the suspension 420 includes a hole where the hook 410 extends through the suspension 420 to engage the load cell assembly 450); 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 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), a force sensor (load cell assembly 450) disposed between the fastener and the frame (see Fig. 20).
Claim 2: Herrmann discloses the apparatus as forth in claim 1, further comprising 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 discloses the apparatus as forth in claim 2, 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 discloses the apparatus as forth in claim 1, wherein the material handling device is a chain hoist (chain hoist, Title, col. 6, lines 42-48).
Claim 8: Herrmann discloses the apparatus as forth in claim 1, 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 discloses the apparatus as forth in claim 1, wherein the force sensor (load cell assembly 450) is ring shaped (see Fig. 21).
Claim 10: Herrmann discloses the apparatus as forth in claim 1, 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).
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 4-5, 7, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of applicant-cited Hawkins et al. (US20150123056).
Claim 4: Herrmann 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 order to maintain the hoist in a desired position during use (Hawkins [0003]).
Claim 5: Herrmann 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 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 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 14: Herrmann teaches a load sensing apparatus for use with a material handling device (chain hoist), the load sensing apparatus, comprising: a frame (suspension 420, Fig. 20) configured to support the material handling device, the frame having a wall with an opening defined therein (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 to engage the load cell assembly 450); 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 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 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 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 Hawkins teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 14. Herrmann 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 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 Hawkins further in view of Peaker et al. (US20210275367)
Claim 13: Herrmann 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 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 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 Hawkins in order to increase the functionality of the device (Peaker [0140]).
Claim 17: Herrmann teaches load sensing apparatus for use with a material handling device (chain hoist), the load sensing apparatus, comprising: a frame (suspension 420, Fig. 20) configured to support the material handling device, the frame having a wall with an opening defined therein (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 to engage the load cell assembly 450); 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 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 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 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 Hawkins in order to increase the functionality of the device (Peaker [0140]).
Claim 18: Herrmann 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 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 Hawkins and Peaker teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 17. Herrmann 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 order to maintain the hoist in a desired position during use (Hawkins [0003])
Claims 11- 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Raines, Jr. et al. (US11390493).
Claim 11: Herrmann 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 order to meet OSHA safety standards (col. 1, lines 11-18).
Claim 12: Herrmann in view of Raines teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 11. 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Latoria (US8265745), teaches a hoist with pawl and ratchet.
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 1/17/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855