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 Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 8 recites “an amount torque,” which appears to contain a typographical error (i.e. “amount of torque”). Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-3, 5, 9, 18, and 20-22 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 2 lines 5 and 6 (each) recite “its,” which has vague antecedent. To which element do these recitations have reference?
Claim 3 line 3 recites “(i.e. the central winch shaft),” which is vague and ambiguous. Is this a limitation, or merely an example?
Claim 5 line 3 recites “the said electronic modules,” which has unclear antecedent. Only one (single) electronic module is set forth previous to this recitation.
Claim 9 line 4 recites “(manual and powered),” which is vague and ambiguous. Is this a limitation, or merely an example?
Claim 18 line 3 recites “said microprocessor,” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 20 line 7 recites “the control input device in the winch handle,” which has unclear antecedent. A control input device is set forth previous to this limitation, but not “in the winch handle.” Does this limitation have reference to the same control input device as set forth in claim 16?
Claim 21 lines 4-5 recite “(manual and powered),” which is vague and ambiguous. Is this a limitation, or merely an example?
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.
Claims 1, 7, 12-13, 15-16, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0078979 A1 (hereinafter “Geagan”) in view of US 2019/0284030 A1 (hereinafter “Holmberg”) and US 2018/0016123 A1 (hereinafter “Bruno”).
Regarding claim 24 Geagan teaches a power assist device for a manually operated winch (10), comprising:
an electric motor (28) arranged to be connected to a winch (10), and a winch handle (16) adapted to be temporarily engaged with the winch (10),
a motor control unit (38),
sensors (22; i.e. 4 load cells, see paragraph 17) to sense the amount of force and direction of rotation applied to the winch handle (16) by a user (paragraph 17), and
a microprocessor (26; see paragraph 21) arranged to send [signals] to the motor control unit (38) controlling the electric motor (28) to apply an amount torque to the winch (10), in a particular direction, based on the wireless signals from the winch handle (16).
Geagan fails to teach wireless connections including a transmitter/receiver.
Holmberg teaches a motor control unit (41) which controls an electric motor (30) which drives a drum (20). Holmberg further teaches a transmitter/receiver device in wireless communication with the motor control unit (41) (see last 7 lines of paragraph 13). 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 controller of Geagan wireless, as taught by Holmberg, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to allow remote control of the winch.
Geagan fails to teach the handle having an internal power supply, or the sensors being part of the handle.
Bruno teaches a handle for a capstan style winch similar to Geagan. Bruno further teaches the handle (2) having an internal power supply (33), and a control system (31 and 21-23) for activating a motor to turn the winch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the controller and sensor of Geagan to the handle of the winch, as it is known from Bruno to have control systems therein, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide the user with better control of the winch.
Regarding claim 1 Geagan teaches a power assist system for a manually operated winch (10), the power assist system comprising:
a winch (10) having a central winch shaft (20), an electric motor (28) with a drive shaft (30) and a motor control unit (38), a winch handle (16) adjusted for manually operating the winch (10), and a control input device (26), wherein
the electric motor (28) and the drive shaft (30) are connected to the winch (10) and the central winch shaft (20) through a connection module (“casing,” paragraph 30) placed (at least partially) below said winch (10), and
the winch handle (16) is arranged to temporarily and mechanically connect with an upper end of the central winch shaft (20) to allow manual operation of the winch (10), and
the control input device (26) comprises (is) one or more electronic unit(s),
and the control input device (26) is further arranged to send control signals to the motor control unit (38), and
the control signals are arranged to be temporarily but uniquely linked (i.e. there is only one controller in the system) to the motor control unit (38) to selectively control the winch (10) that the winch handle (16) is temporarily connected to, and
the control input device (26) is adjusted to send different control signals to the motor control unit (38) depending on the direction the winch (10) is manually operated in (paragraph 17).
Geagan fails to teach wireless connections including a transmitter/receiver.
Holmberg teaches a motor control unit (41) which controls an electric motor (30) which drives a drum (20). Holmberg further teaches a radio transmitter/receiver device in wireless communication with the motor control unit (41) (see last 7 lines of paragraph 13). 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 controller of Geagan wireless, as taught by Holmberg, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to allow remote control of the winch.
Geagan fails to teach the handle storing energy to operate the control input device, or the sensors being part of the handle.
Bruno teaches a handle for a capstan style winch similar to Geagan. Bruno further teaches the handle (2) having an internal power supply (33), and a control system (31 and 21-23) for activating a motor to turn the winch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the controller and sensor of Geagan to the handle of the winch, as it is known from Bruno to have control systems therein, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide the user with better control of the winch.
Regarding claim 16 Geagan teaches a method for providing power assist to a winch (10) comprising:
Providing an electric motor (28) having a drive shaft (30) connected to the winch (10) and a motor control unit (38) for controlling the turning force and direction of the electric motor (28), thus turning the winch (10) via the drive shaft (30), and
Providing a winch handle (16) [and] a control input device (26) including a force sensor (22; i.e. 4 load cells, see paragraph 17) arranged to measure the force applied to the handle (16) by a user, and further comprising communication means for transmitting a control signal representing the turning direction and force measured by the sensor (22) (see par. 17) to communication means in the motor control unit (38), and
Configuring the motor control unit (38) to cause the electric motor (28) to apply a turning force to the winch (10) based upon the control signal transmitted by the control input device (26), and
Configuring the control input device (26) to send different wireless control signals (par. 17) to the motor control unit (38) depending on the duration and amount of force being picked up by said force sensor when the winch (10) is manually operated, and force is applied to the winch handle (16).
Geagan fails to teach wireless connections including a transmitter/receiver.
Holmberg teaches a motor control unit (41) which controls an electric motor (30) which drives a drum (20). Holmberg further teaches a radio transmitter/receiver device in wireless communication with the motor control unit (41) (see last 7 lines of paragraph 13). 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 controller of Geagan wireless, as taught by Holmberg, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to allow remote control of the winch.
Geagan fails to teach the handle storing energy to operate the control input device, or the sensors being part of the handle.
Bruno teaches a handle for a capstan style winch similar to Geagan. Bruno further teaches the handle (2) having an internal power supply (33), and a control system (31 and 21-23) for activating a motor to turn the winch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the controller and sensor of Geagan to the handle of the winch, as it is known from Bruno to have control systems therein, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide the user with better control of the winch.
Regarding claim 23 Geagan teaches a power assist system for a manually operated winch (12), the power assist system comprising:
an electric motor (28) with a drive shaft (30) and a motor control unit (38), a winch handle (16) configured for manually operating a winch (12) with a central winch shaft (20) protruding down below said winch (12) and a control input device (26), wherein
the electric motor (28) and the drive shaft (30) are connected to the winch (12) and the central winch shaft (20) through a connection module (“casing,” see paragraph 30) placed (at least partially) below said winch (10), and
the winch handle (16) is configured to temporarily and mechanically connect with an upper end of the central winch shaft (20) to allow manual operation of the winch (12), and
the control input device (26) comprises a microprocessor (26; see paragraph 21) and a force sensor (22; par. 17), and
the control input device (26) is further configured to send control signals to the motor control unit (38), and
the control signals are configured to be temporarily and uniquely linked (i.e. there is only one control system in Geagan) to the motor control unit (38) to selectively control the winch (10) that the winch handle (16) is temporarily connected to, and
the control input device (26) is configured to send different wireless control signals (par. 17) to the motor control unit (38) depending on the direction the winch handle (16) is manually operated in.
Geagan fails to teach wireless connections including a transmitter/receiver.
Holmberg teaches a motor control unit (41) which controls an electric motor (30) which drives a drum (20). Holmberg further teaches a radio transmitter/receiver device in wireless communication with the motor control unit (41) (see last 7 lines of paragraph 13). 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 controller of Geagan wireless, as taught by Holmberg, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to allow remote control of the winch.
Geagan fails to teach the handle storing energy to operate the control input device, or the sensors being part of the handle.
Bruno teaches a handle for a capstan style winch similar to Geagan. Bruno further teaches the handle (2) having an internal power supply (33), and a control system (31 and 21-23) for activating a motor to turn the winch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the controller and sensor of Geagan to the handle of the winch, as it is known from Bruno to have control systems therein, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide the user with better control of the winch.
Regarding claim 7 modified Geagan teaches the above system (see claim 1), but fails to teach the NFC antenna and unique address as set forth in claim 7. Official Notice is given that NFC antennas and unique addresses are old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the NFC antennas and unique addresses in Geagan, as is known in the art, 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 communicate with the winch drive system.
Regarding claim 12 modified Geagan teaches the above system, and further teaches where the control input device (Geagan 26, as modified above) comprises a rechargeable battery (Bruno 33).
Regarding claim 13 modified Geagan teaches the above system, and further teaches where the control input device (Geagan 26) comprises a wireless charging means (Bruno paragraph 36) adjusted to charge the rechargeable battery (Bruno 33).
Regarding claim 15 modified Geagan teaches the above system, but fails to teach the LED light as set forth in claim 15. Official Notice is given that LED power indicators are old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an LED power indicator, as is known in the art, to the control input device of Geagan with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to apprise a user of when the system is in operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 8, 10-11, 14, 17, and 19 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.
Claims 2-3, 5, 9, 18, and 20-22 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.
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.
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.
/NATHANIEL L ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654