DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions. 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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kämper (U.S. Patent No. 5,271,606; “Kämper”).
Kämper discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
A dual-ratchet winch (depicted in FIG. 1) attached to a plate (5, 5”), the dual-ratchet winch comprising:
a ratchet mechanism (14, 14’, 38, 38’) coupled to and configured to rotate with respect to the plate (col. 8, 20-33), the ratchet mechanism including a pair of gears (14, 14’);
a pawl (38, 38’) including a pair of pawl tips (at 39) and a locking hole (43), the pair of pawl tips configured to engage (depicted in FIG. 5) or disengage (depicted in FIGS. 7-8) the pair of gears of the ratchet mechanism; and a pin assembly (37) configured to keep the pair of pawl tips disengaged from the ratchet mechanism (depicted in FIG. 7 and/or 8; col. 7, ll. 37-62).
Regarding claim 2:
The dual-ratchet winch of claim 1, wherein the pawl further includes a pair of pawl guides (52, 52’; FIG. 1) configured to guide a movement of the pawl to engage or disengage the ratchet mechanism (via portions 31; col 5, ll. 38-41; col. 8, ll. 5-36; col. 7, ll. 52-62).
Regarding claim 3:
The dual-ratchet winch of claim 1, wherein the pawl further includes a handle (32) to pull the pawl out and to disengage the pair of pawl tips from the ratchet mechanism (col. 7, ll. 52-62).
Regarding claim 4:
The dual-ratchet winch of claim 1, further comprising a pawl mounting plate (35, 35’) including a slot through which the pawl is mounted (via shafts 53 as seen in FIG. 1; col. 6, ll. 1-10).
Regarding claim 5:
The dual-ratchet winch of claim 4, wherein the pawl mounting plate further includes an opening (36) through which the locking pin passes (col. 6, ll. 30-31; see in FIG. 1-2).
Regarding claim 6:
The dual-ratchet winch of claim 1, wherein the pawl further includes a pair of wings (33, 33’ via portions 31, 31’ see in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 7:
The dual-ratchet winch of claim 6, further comprising a pair of compression springs (34, 34’; FIG. 1), each compression spring configured to insert into each wing of the pair of wings (depicted in FIG. 1-2).
Regarding claim 8:
The dual-ratchet winch of claim 1, wherein the pin assembly includes a locking pin (37) configured to drop into the locking hole to keep the pair of pawl tips disengaged from the ratchet mechanism (depicted in FIG. 7-8).
Regarding claim 9:
The dual-ratchet winch of claim 8, further comprising a plurality of center holes (FIG. 1 depicts holes into which tie down bar 13 extends therethrough) into which a tie-down bar (13) is inserted to rotate the ratchet mechanism with respect to the plate (intended use; bar 13 is capable of being used to rotate the ratchet member with respect to the plate, see MPEP § 2112, 2114) while the pair of pawl tips is disengaged from the ratchet mechanism (as depicted in FIG. 7-8).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kämper.
Kämper discloses:
Regarding claim 10:
A dual-ratchet winch (depicted in FIG. 1) for a car hauler trailer (intended use; see MPEP § 2111.02(II)), the dual-ratchet winch comprising:
a plate (5, 5’); a gear mechanism (14, 14’) including a plurality of gears (14, 14’), the gear mechanism coupled to and configured to rotate with respect to the plate (col. 8, 20-33); and a pawl (38, 38’) including a plurality of pawl tips (at 39) configured to engage (depicted in FIG. 5) or disengage (depicted in FIG. 7-8) the plurality of gears by moving laterally forward or backward (depicted in FIG. 7 and/or 8; col. 7, ll. 37-62).
However, it does not expressly disclose the winch being for a car hauler trailer, the plate of the winch being attached to a side of the car hauler trailer.
In certain circumstances where appropriate, an examiner may take official notice of facts not in the record or rely on "common knowledge" in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2144.03. Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). Here, the Examiner takes official notice that using a winch for a car hauler trailer, the plate of the winch being attached to a side of the car hauler trailer, is instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. For example, see thee “BACKGROUND” section in the instant specification describes as background information i.e. information known in the art that “[a] car hauler trailer may have winches attached to the side to strap the vehicle(s) down to the trailer.” As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kämper, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the winch is used for a car hauler trailer, the plate of the winch being attached to a side of the car hauler trailer, as such combination of elements are instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art.
Kämper as modified above further teaches the following:
Regarding claim 11:
The dual-ratchet winch of claim 10, wherein the pawl further includes a locking hole (43).
Regarding claim 12:
The dual-ratchet winch of claim 11, further comprising a pin assembly (37) including a locking pin (37) configured to drop into the locking hole to keep the plurality of pawl tips disengaged from the gear mechanism (depicted in FIG. 7 and/or 8; col. 7, ll. 37-62).
Regarding claim 13:
The dual-ratchet winch of claim 10, wherein the pawl further includes a pair of pawl guides (52, 52’; FIG. 1) configured to guide a movement of the pawl to engage or disengage the ratchet mechanism (via portions 31; col 5, ll. 38-41; col. 8, ll. 5-36; col. 7, ll. 52-62).
Regarding claim 14:
The dual-ratchet winch of claim 10, further comprising a handle (32) for the pawl, wherein the handle enables the pawl to be pulled out and disengage the plurality of pawl tips from the gear mechanism (col. 7, ll. 52-62).
Regarding claim 15:
The dual-ratchet winch of claim 10, further comprising a pawl mounting plate (35, 35’) including a slot through which the pawl is mounted (via shafts 53 as seen in FIG. 1; col. 6, ll. 1-10).
Regarding claim 16:
The dual-ratchet winch of claim 15, wherein the pawl mounting plate further includes an opening (36) through which the locking pin passes (col. 6, ll. 30-31; see in FIG. 1-2).
Regarding claim 17:
The dual-ratchet winch of claim 10, further comprising a plurality of compression springs (34, 34’) coupled to the pawl (via elements 31, 33, see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 18:
A winch (depicted in FIG. 1) for a car hauler trailer (intended use, see MPEP § 2111.02(II)), the winch comprising:
a gear mechanism (14, 14’) including at least one gear (14, 14’) the gear mechanism coupled to and configured to rotate with respect to a side of the car hauler trailer (see rejection to claim 10 supra regarding official notice regarding official notice);
a pawl (38, 38’) including at least one pawl tip (at 39) and a handle (32), wherein the at least one pawl tip is configured to disengage from the gear mechanism by moving the handle laterally away from the at least one gear (depicted in FIG. 7 and/or 8; col. 7, ll. 37-62); and a compression spring (34, 34”), wherein the at least one pawl tip is configured to engage the gear mechanism by the compression spring pushing the pawl laterally toward the at least one gear (springs 34 bias portions 31, 31’ toward the gear 14, 14’ and in turn bias pins 37, 37 toward the same, thus biasing the pawl 38 into engagement with the same).
Regarding claim 19:
The winch of claim 18, wherein the pawl further includes a locking hole (43).
Regarding claim 20:
The winch of claim 19, further comprising a pin assembly including a locking pin (37) configured to drop into the locking hole to keep the pair of pawl tips disengaged from the ratchet mechanism (depicted in FIG. 7-8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)270-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 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 John Olszewski can be reached on (571) 272-2706. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656