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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 10, 14 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (KR 10-2316013) (English translation included with copy) in view of Gregory (US RE26,864).
Jeong discloses an elevation system for the hull of a vessel comprising:
a plurality of deck units, each of which including:
a frame 100, 310,
a movable deck 10a, 10b, 10c coupled to a frame so as to be movable in a vertical direction,
a sliding unit 320 coupled to a frame so as to be movable in a horizontal direction, and
a plurality of elevation wires 40a-43a, 40b-43b, 40c-43c, each having an end connected to a movable deck 10a, 10b, 10c and another end coupled to a sliding unit via a direction changing sheave (FIG. 12: shown but unlabeled changing direction of wires 40-43) installed at a frame;
a first sheave 30 installed at each of a plurality of deck units and fixed to a frame;
a drive wire 20 extending through a plurality of deck units and simultaneously wound around a first sheave to deliver a driving force to a sliding unit;
a driver 210 configured to pull a drive wire 20 to cause a sliding unit to be slidably moved; and
a fixing unit 340 installed on a sliding unit.
[AltContent: textbox (1st sheave)]Jeong does not disclose a second sheave coupled to a sliding unit. Gregory discloses a first sheave installed at a deck unit and fixed to a frame and a second sheave installed at each of a plurality of deck units and coupled to a sliding unit, so that a distance between a first sheave and a second sheave is adjusted as a sliding unit moves. (See annotated FIG. 3 below.)
[AltContent: textbox (Drive wire on )][AltContent: textbox (2nd sheave)]
PNG
media_image1.png
258
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Both Jeong and Gregory address wire, e.g. cable, based mechanical actuation using sheaves. Jeong discloses a multi deck elevation solution, but lacks a continuous drive wire for synchronized sliding unit movement. Gregory adds a drive wire wound around multiple sheaves and driven by a single driver. Combining them yields predictable improvements including simplified control, synchronized operation, reduced actuator count, and improved reliability. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Jeong to include a second sheave installed at each of a deck unit and coupled to a sliding unit and a drive wire extending through a plurality of deck units and simultaneously wound around a first sheave and a second sheave of each deck unit, as taught by Gregory, which follows the teachings established in KSR where both involves solutions to similar apparatus' and the combination yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 12 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Gregory and further in view of Kaiturinmaki (US 2015/0184407) which discloses a first sheave 18 provided in a multi-layer form. Kaiturinmaki further discloses a drive wire 17 is simultaneously wound between first and second sheaves 19, 20 and the second sheave a plurality of times and extends to an adjacent deck unit 2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Jeong to include a first sheave in multi-layer form, as taught by Kaiturinmaki, such that " symmetrical hoist winch structure of this kind does not exert any bending forces on the lifting pylons, when the upper platform is lifted, but the lifting pylons only receive vertical forces produced by the lifting movement."
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 & 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights