DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed on 05/05/2026 have been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le (US 20100284758).
Regarding claim 1, Le discloses A pad eye assembly comprising two or more rings (50, 52) disposed within a recess (recess of 30, fig) of a base (30); and two or more shafts (60) disposed within the recess (figs 1-3), wherein the two or more shafts respectively secure each of the [[one]] two or more rings to the recess at first and second proximal ends of the two or more rings (figs 1-3),wherein the two or more rings rotate axially about the recess via the two or more shafts (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, Le further discloses two or more holes (hole in 60, 74, fig 1-3) for fastening the two or more shafts to the recess with a fastener (90) (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, Le further discloses that the fastener includes two or more pins (90) (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Le further discloses that the fastener includes two or more bolts (90) (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, Le further discloses that two or more rings include the two or more shafts disposed within the recess (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Le further discloses that the two or more shafts further comprise an interior plate (70) fastened to the recess (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Le further discloses that two or more side walls (wall on 70 including 74, fig 2) within the recess include the two or more holes (74) for fastening the two or more shafts to the recess (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 11, Le further discloses that the ]two or more shafts each support retaining forces applied against first and/or second distal ends of the two or more rings (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, Le further discloses that the two or more rings are each positioned at non-zero angles when the retaining forces are applied (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, Le further discloses that the two or more rings is two rings, and wherein each of the two rings supports half load capacity when the retaining forces are applied to the rings (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, Le further discloses that one of the two or more rings supports a full load capacity when he retaining forces are applied to the one two or more rings (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Le further discloses that the two or more rings disposed in the recess are flush with one or more non-recessed portions when positioned at a zero angle
Regarding claim 16, Le further discloses that the base is a pan (30) (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 17, Le further discloses the recess further comprises two or more troughs (portions of 38 beneath 50 and 52, figs 1-3) disposed beneath a respective one of each of the two or more rings (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 18, Le further discloses that each of the two or more rings are the same shape (figs 1-3).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le (US 20100284758) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Egigian (US 20200353856).
Regarding claim 3, Le is silent regarding the fact that the one or more shafts to the recess includes one or more pins.
Egigian teaches the fact that fastening the one or more shafts (12) to the recess includes one or more pins (17) ([0028], fig 8).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Le and Egigian before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Le to include the pin as taught by Egigian in order to act as an extension stop relative to the housing ([0028]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le (US 20100284758) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shambeau et al. (US 6065917).
Regarding claim 8, Le is silent regarding the fact that the one or more shafts are welded to the recess.
Shambeau teaches the fact that the one or more shafts are welded to the recess (col 3 lines 1-7).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Le and Shambeau before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Le to include welding the shaft to the recess as taught by Shambeau in order to perform operation reliably, even in dirty or contaminated environments (col 1 lines 37-44)
Claims 5, 10, and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le (US 20100284758) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mckinson et al. (US 20200369196).
Regarding claim 5, Le is silent regarding the fact that the fastener includes two or more spring mechanisms.
McKimson teaches the fact that that the fastener includes a spring mechanism (142) ([0051]-[0052]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Le and McKimson before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Le to include the spring mechanism as taught by McKimson in order to bias the ring between the base and the ring ([0050]-[0052])
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Le discloses a pad eye assembly comprising two or more rings (50, 52) disposed within a recess (38) of a base (30) (figs 1-3), the base further comprising two or more shafts (60) disposed within the recess (figs 1-3), wherein the two or more shafts respectively secure each of the two or more rings to the recess at first and second proximal ends of the two or more rings (figs 1-3), wherein the recess includes two or more holes (62, 64, 72) for fastening the two or more shafts to the recess (figs 1-3), wherein the two or more rings rotate axially about the recess via the two or more shafts to support wherein the two or more shafts each support the retaining forces applied against first and/or second distal ends of the two or more rings when the one or more of the two or more rings are each positioned at one or more non- zero angles when one or more the retaining forces are applied (figs 1-3).
Le is silent regarding the presence of a backing plate separate from the base and insertable beneath the base, wherein the backing plate is configured to increase a mounting strength of the assembly to a surface.
McKimson teaches a backing plate (136) separate from the base (124) and insertable beneath the base (fig 12), wherein the backing plate is configured to increase a mounting strength of the assembly to a surface ([0047], fig 12).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Le and McKimson before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Le to include the backing plate as taught by McKimson in order to withstand a predetermined pull force ([0047]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le (US 20100284758) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bullock et al. (US 20060133907)
Regarding claim 19, Le is silent regarding the fact that each of the two or more rings are different shapes.
Bullock teaches that each of the two or more rings (22, 26) are different shapes (abstract, fig 2).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Le and McKimson before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Le to include two ring with different shapes as taught by Bullock in order to center a strap within the bail or to facilitate the use of multiple straps (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered and are persuasive. However, a new ground of rejection is applied in light of Le (US 20100284758)
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 DANY E AKAKPO whose telephone number is (469)295-9255. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/DANY E AKAKPO/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
06/30/2026
Prosecution Insights