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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (second to last line) recites “the first direction line,” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1 (clause b) recites “…sheaves disposed between the plates of the or each sheave being carried for rotation...”which is unclear.
Claim 13 recites “the anchorage” in lines 7-8. This has unclear antecedent basis because there are two anchorages set forth in claim 13 lines 2-3. To which anchorage does this limitation have reference?
Claim 15 (last line) recites “an anchorage”. This has unclear antecedent basis because there are two anchorages set forth in claim 13 lines 2-3. Does this limitation require a third anchorage, or is it meant to reference one of the previously set forth anchorages?
Claim 16 (last line) recites “an anchorage”. This has unclear antecedent basis because there are two anchorages set forth in claim 13 lines 2-3. Does this limitation require a third anchorage, or is it meant to reference one of the previously set forth anchorages?
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 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 1-2, 4-7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,286,947 B2 (hereinafter “Rogelja”).
Regarding claim 1 Rogelja discloses a pulley assembly comprising:
a. first (16) and second (14) plates disposed about a median plane (P, see annotated fig. 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
875
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
b. one or more sheaves (12/40) disposed between the plates (16 and 14) of the or each sheave (12/40) being carried for rotation about a sheave axis (see fig. 1) that is perpendicular to the median plane (P);
c. a bollard (21) that extends between the plates (see figure below) (also: if the karabiner simultaneously touches a surface on each plate, the karabiner could be considered to extend between the plates at least in that sense) that provides an interconnection (via clipping the plates together) between the plates (16 and 14); wherein
PNG
media_image2.png
577
775
media_image2.png
Greyscale
d. the bollard (21) is shaped, whereby the dimension of the bollard (21) in a first direction along a dimension line (L) that extends radially from a sheave axis (see fig. 1) and is in, or parallel to, the median plane (P) is greater than the dimension of the bollard (21) in a second direction line (in/out of page; see fig. 1) that is perpendicular to [the first dimension line] (L) and in, or parallel to, the median plane (P).
Regarding claim 2 Rogelja discloses the above assembly, and further discloses a plurality of sheaves (12/40).
Regarding claim 4 Rogelja discloses the above assembly, and further discloses in which the sheaves (12/40) are of different sizes.
Regarding claim 5 Rogelja discloses the above assembly, and further discloses in which the sheaves (12/40) decrease in size with increasing distance from the bollard (21).
Regarding claim 6 Rogelja discloses the above assembly, and further discloses in which the major dimension line (L) extends through the sheave axis (see fig. 1) of each of a plurality of sheaves (12/40).
Regarding claim 7 Rogelja discloses the above assembly, and further discloses in which the major dimension line (L) extends through all of the sheaves (12/40).
Regarding claim 9 Rogelja discloses the above assembly, and further discloses in which the dimension of the bollard (21) in the said first direction (vertical; see “L” above) is greater than the dimension of the bollard (21) in the said second direction by a ratio r of 2 or more (i.e. the thickness of a karabiner is generally equal to the width of each arm thereof).
Regarding claim 12 Rogelja discloses the above assembly, and further discloses in which the bollard (21) is releasably connected (e.g. via karabiner clip) to one or both of the plates (16 and 14).
Claims 1 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,773,295 A (hereinafter “Holmes”).
Regarding claim 1 Holmes discloses a pulley assembly comprising:
a. first and second plates (21) disposed about a median plane (M, see annotated fig. below);
PNG
media_image3.png
510
495
media_image3.png
Greyscale
b. one or more sheaves (20) disposed between the plates (21) of the sheave (20) being carried for rotation about a sheave (20) axis (see fig. 2) that is perpendicular to the median plane (M);
c. a bollard (B) that extends between the plates (21) that provides an interconnection between the plates (21); wherein
d. the bollard (B) is shaped, whereby the dimension of the bollard (B) in a first direction along a dimension line (FD) that extends radially from a sheave axis (at 22) and is in, or parallel to, the median plane (M) is greater than the dimension of the bollard (B) in a second direction line (SD) that is perpendicular to the [dimension line (FD)] and in, or parallel to, the median plane (M).
Regarding claim 8 Holmes discloses the above assembly, and further discloses in which the pulley assembly includes a cross-hole (i.e. aperture for rivet 24) that extends generally perpendicular to the median plane (M) through the plates (21) and through the bollard (B).
Regarding claim 9 Holmes discloses the above assembly, and further discloses in which the dimension of the bollard (B) in the said first direction (see FD, above) is greater than the dimension of the bollard (B) in the said second direction (SD) by a ratio r of 2 or more.
Regarding claim 10 Holmes discloses the above assembly, and further discloses in which the ratio r≃3.
Regarding claim 11 Holmes discloses the above assembly, and further discloses in which the bollard (B) provides a solid and immovable interconnection between the plates (21).
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 Rogelja.
Regarding claim 3 Rogelja discloses the above assembly, but fails to teach the sheaves are the same size. Sizing of components is considered a common design choice that those of ordinary skill in the art consider routine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the pulleys Rogelja of any convenient size, including the same size, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to properly size the pulley block for a particular rope and load.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,594,034 (hereinafter “Rowell”) in view of Rogelja.
Regarding claim 13 Rowell teaches an installation for moving objects comprising a main line (70) securable to two spaced-apart anchorages (108, 75);
a trolley (9) supported by and capable of moving along the main line (70);
a control line (76) connected to the trolley (9), whereby tension on the control line (76) can draw the trolley (9) along the main line (70); and
a pulley assembly (107);
wherein, in use, the pulley assembly (107) is connected to [one of the two spaced apart anchorages] by a line (see fig. 7) that is passed about a bollard (see fig. 7), and [the main line] extends over [a sheave] of the pulley assembly (107).
Rowell fails to teach the pulley assembly according to claim 1, as required by claim 13. Rogelja teaches the pulley assembly according to claim 1 (see above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the pulley assembly of Rowell with the construction taught by Rogelja with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to have a pulley block which is easy and quick to set up/ take down.
Regarding claim 15 modified Rowell teaches the above installation, and further teaches a securing line (Rowell fig. 7), a length of which passes in a bight around the bollard (Rogelja “21”) and which is secured to an anchorage (Rowell 108).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowell in view of Rogelja, and in further view of US 0,597,296 (hereinafter “Richson”).
Regarding claim 14 modified Rowell teaches the above installation, and further teaches a lifting line (Rowell 79) that is secured (at least indirectly) to a load to be moved, and that extends over a sheave (Rowell fig. 8) of the trolley (Rowell 9) and one of the sheaves (Rowell 110) of the pulley assembly (107), and has a free end portion that extends (to the left) from [near] the pulley assembly (107). Rowell fails to teach the lifting line sheave being part of the pulley assembly (i.e. there are separate pulleys all connected separately to the anchorage, 108). This appears to represent no more than obvious variation in view of Richson. Richson teaches a similar installation with a trolley (F) riding a main line (A), and a pulley assembly (D) attached to an anchorage (B’) via a securing line (E). Richson shows that multi-sheave pulley arrangements were known in the art at the time of filing (see lines running over sheaves C-C4 on pulley assembly (D) ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the separate sheaves of Rowell onto a single pulley assembly, as taught by Richson, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to keep the lines separate to keep them from fouling.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowell in view of Rogelja, and in further view of US 7,673,851 (hereinafter “Lange”).
Regarding claim 16 modified Rowell teaches the above installation. Rowell fails to teach the particulars of claim 16. Lange teaches an installation with a pulley assembly comprising plates (14a/14b) with a bollard (52) extending therebetween. Lange further teaches the pulley assembly includes a cross-hole (19) that extends generally perpendicular to a median plane through the plates (14a/14b) and through the bollard (52) and which further includes a secondary securing line (see 36) that passes through the cross-hole (19) and is secured to an anchorage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the cross-hole type bollard as per Lang, to the pulley assembly of Rowell with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better secure the pulley assembly of Rowell.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for indicating claim 17 as potentially allowable were given in the action of 09/10/25, and are not reiterated here.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 12) that the “carabiner is not a component of the pulley.” This is not persuasive. As shown in the figures, karabiner 21 is part of the pulley assembly. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues (page 12) that the carabiner is not “a bollard.” This is not persuasive. Normally, the word “bollard” refers to “a short, sturdy, vertical post—typically made of metal, concrete, or wood—used to manage traffic, protect pedestrians, or secure areas” (Google 02/03/26). Applicant provides no lexicographic definition. As the claim itself defines the invention, currently a “bollard” appears to be a piece of unknown material with an amorphous shape, which conforms to the (sparse) limitations of clauses “c” and “d” of claim 1. As noted above, Rogelja’s element 21 could therefore be considered a bollard, as presently claimed. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues (page 12) that the carabiner does not provide “a rope guiding function.” This is not persuasive. No rope or guiding is claimed, so this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. For example, claim 1 does not require a rope. Claim 1 does not require that the bollard guides anything. Claim 13 does require working lines, but these are met in the combination of references, as above. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues (page 12) that the carabiner is not “disposed between the plates” and doesn’t provide “an interconnection between the plates.” This is not persuasive. Firstly, if the karabiner simultaneously touches a surface on each plate, the karabiner could be considered to extend between the plates at least in that sense. Secondly, as shown in the annotated figure below, the karabiner (21) can move within the apertures 14(a) and 16(a). The karabiner at least partially extends between the plates 14 and 16. As to interconnection, the karabiner locks the plates from rotating completely open. This is considered “interconnection” under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image2.png
577
775
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues (page 12) that Rogelja doesn’t teach clause “d” of claim 1, stating “the plane of the carabiner is shown at (and to be connected to the pulley) must be at an angle inclined to the sheave axis of the pulley.” This is not persuasive. No bollard plane is claimed. Clause d of claim 1 only requires particular dimensions of the bollard relative to the median plane. As discussed above, and shown below, the first dimension line (L, see annotated fig. below) passes through a sheave axis, is parallel to the median plane (P). The dimension of the bollard (21) in this direction is greater than the width of the bollard (21) in the claimed second direction line (in and out of the page in the below fig.).
PNG
media_image1.png
875
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant alleges (page 12) that Rogelja “does not disclose the features of the invention.” This statement does not appear to have any factual underpinning, and is not persuasive.
Applicant further alleges (page 12) that the Office used “artificial construction” in citing Rogelja element 21 as a “bollard which is an integral part of the pulley assembly.” This is not persuasive. Claim 1 fails to require the bollard to be “integral” with anything. It is not clear why the Office would impart meaning to the claims when the disputed words are not actually present in the claims. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments centered on the Kambayashi reference have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such references show various forms of apparatus which comprise at least one similar feature to the present application.
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 Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time.
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, Victoria P Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/N.L.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights