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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown and properly identified by a reference number, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The base plate secured with a ring and a plurality of bolts (claim 20).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The base plate secured with a ring coupled to the base plate and a plurality of bolts, as set forth in claim 20.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 12-14 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-10 and 12-17 of U.S. Patent No. US 12091139 B2 (‘139)
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of the instant claims are encompassed in the claims of the ‘139 Patent.
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 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Stohler et al. (US 10246168 B1).
Stohler et al. shows a rope management system, comprising: a base plate [20] configured to mount a rope management apparatus to a tower unit [14] of a vessel (col. 3, lines 15-21); and the rope management apparatus, comprising: a first retraction unit [28] connected to a rotatable part of a second retraction unit [24] and configured to rotate about a first rotational axis from a first stowed position to a first deployed position in response to an application of force; and the second retraction unit connected to the base plate, the second retraction unit configured to rotate about a second rotational axis that is different from the first rotational axis from a second stowed position to a second deployed position in response to the application of force, wherein the first retraction unit and the second retraction unit are each configured to return to the first and second stowed positions in response to removal of the application of force.
Re claim 18, the second retraction unit comprises a resistive mechanism [27] that causes the second retraction unit to return to the second stowed position in response to removal of the application of force.
Claims 1-3, 6-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Fatzinger (US 7,334,808 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Fatzinger discloses a rope management apparatus (see Fig 2), comprising: a first retraction unit comprising a first fixed carrier (see the vertically-extending lugs or “ears” that receive fasteners 43) and a first rotating carrier [16], wherein the first rotating carrier is configured to rotate with respect to the first fixed carrier about a first horizontal axis between a first upper position and a second lower position. Although the first retraction unit does not have any resistive device or mechanism coupled to it, the first rotating carrier, when disposed in the first upper position, would be biased along the first axis toward the second lower position due to gravitational force. In other words, the weight of the first rotating carrier would cause a biasing effect toward the second lower position due to the pull exerted by gravity. The first rotating carrier comprises a rope sleeve [16 or 46].
Regarding the limitation “a tow point configured for retaining an end of a tow rope” (emphasis added), it is noted that the claim does not positively recite the tow rope. In the present case, the pin [22] is capable of being attached to any tow rope and is broadly considered to be a tow point.
Further, a second retraction unit comprises a second fixed carrier (see the cylindrical part between upper and lower springs 24) and a second rotating carrier (housing 30, including upper and lower lugs extending forwardly from the housing), wherein the second rotating carrier is coaxially aligned with the tow point and coupled to the first retraction unit via the first fixed carrier. The second rotating carrier and the first retraction unit are configured to rotate with respect to the tow point about a second axis between a third position and a fourth position, the second rotating carrier being biased in the third position due to springs [24].
Re claim 2, the second retraction unit is repositionable between at least a first orientation and a second orientation, wherein when the second retraction unit is positioned in the first orientation, the second rotating carrier and the first retraction unit are configured to rotate between the third position and the fourth position.
Re claim 3, when the second retraction unit is positioned in the second orientation, the second rotating carrier and the first retraction unit are configured to rotate between the fourth position and a fifth position (intermediate the third and fourth positions), the second rotating carrier biased along the second axis in the fifth position when in the second orientation.
Re claim 6, the rope management apparatus further comprises a base plate [12] that is capable of mounting, and therefore, configured to mount the rope management apparatus to a tower unit of a vessel. Please see claim 1 for an explanation of the remaining limitations of the present claim.
Re claims 7-9, please see the explanation provided above for claim 1.
Re claim 10, the first fixed carrier (formed as two vertically-extending lugs or “ears” see in Fig 2) comprises at least a first plate and a second plate, wherein the first plate and the second plate are connected to the second rotating carrier in a parallel orientation and are configured to support the first rotating carrier.
Re claim 12, it is noted that the claim does not positively recite the tower unit. In the present case, the base plate of Fatzinger is capable of being mounted to a tower unit such that if/when the base plate is mounted to the tower unit, the base plate would connect to the tower unit at a first portion and connect to the tow point at a second portion laterally offset from the first portion and the tower unit.
Re claims 12-15, please see the explanation provided above for claim 1.
Re claim 16, the rope management system comprises a boom pole [16] connectable to the first retraction unit and configured to receive a rope that passes through the boom pole and the rope sleeve [46].
Re claim 17, the application of force is applied to the first retraction unit and the second retraction unit via the rope.
Re claim 18, the second retraction unit further comprises a resistive mechanism [24] that causes the second retraction unit to return to the second stowed position in response to removal of the application of force.
Re claim 19, as noted above, the claim does not positively recite the tower unit. In the present case, the rope management apparatus of Fatzinger is capable of being mounted to a tower unit such that if/when it is mounted to the tower unit of the vessel, the tow point would be offset from a fixed tow point on the tower unit of the vessel
Re claim 20, as noted above, the claim does not positively recite the tower unit. In the present case, the rope management apparatus of Fatzinger is capable of being mounted to a tower unit such that if/when it is mounted to the tower unit of the vessel, a connecting portion of the base plate would be received around the fixed tow point on the tower unit and secured to the fixed tow point with at least a ring coupled to the base plate and a plurality of bolts.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stohler et al. (US 10246168 B1).
Stohler et al. shows a rope management system, as described above, comprising: a base plate [20] configured to mount a rope management apparatus to a tower unit of a vessel (col. 3, lines 15-21). Stohler et al. also discloses the base plate as being mounted to the vessel by clamping to a cross-member [16] of the tower unit.
Stohler et al. however fails to further disclose how exactly the clamping member is attached to the tower unit.
It is noted that a use of clamping halves for mounting around tubular structures and fixing them with bolts is old and well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to attach the base plate to the tower unit using two clamping halves and bolts. Having such an arrangement would have provided an easy and inexpensive mechanism for attaching the rope management system to the vessel. When assembled, the clamping halves would form a ring around the tubular structure of the tower unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if:
(i) such claims are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and
(ii) a proper terminal disclaimer is filed to over the double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clemmons et al. (US 7234408) shows a rope management system (Fig 5) comprising a first retraction unit with a first fixed carrier [50] and a first rotating carrier [80], and a first resistive mechanism [130] with a first end coupled to the first rotating carrier and a second end coupled to the first fixed carrier.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY VASUDEVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6689. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 am - 3:00 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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
/AJAY VASUDEVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights