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 36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 36, line 1, “a rope or cable” should read ---the rope or cable---.
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.
Claim 35 is 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.
Regarding claim 35, the phrase "rope guide area for rotatable mounting of the rope or cable guide pulley" in line 7, renders the claim unclear. How does the rope guide area provide a rotatable mounting of the cable guide pulley? Suggestion to remove “cable guide pulley”.
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.
Claim(s) 16-18, 20-21, and 25-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US5019019A).
Regarding claims 16-18, Jones discloses an insert element (13, 15, 16, 18; Figures 1-4) for guiding a rope or cable for a cableway installation, comprising: a surface layer (13) with a first surface layer side (top surface of 13) configured to come into contact with a rope or cable to be guided, and a second surface layer side (bottom surface of 13) opposite the first surface layer side; and an indicator element (15) arranged on and/or in the surface layer (13), wherein the indicator element (15) is configured to indicate a state of wear of the insert element (13, 15, 16, 18); wherein the surface layer (13) comprises at least one of an elastomeric material (column 1, lines 36-37); wherein the indicator element (15) comprises at least one of a fabric web and a metal mesh configured to absorb radial forces; wherein the insert element (13, 15, 16, 18) is formed in one piece;
wherein the indicator element (15) covers the second surface layer side at least partially (Figures 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insert element of Jones to include the surface layer comprises at least one of styrene-butadiene rubber, natural rubber, acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, ethylene-propylene-diene rubber, hypalon, polybutadiene rubber, and fluororubber in order to provide a soft and deformable surface to prevent or reduce damage and wear to the rope; and to include the indicator element comprises at least one of a flexible textile fabric and a flexible wire mesh in order to improve flexibility and durability of the rubber insert. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Jones further teaches that the insert element including the surface layer can be made of any elastomeric material which is known in the art any material exhibiting rubber properties. Furthermore, Jones teaches that the insert element can be made of fabric web, which is known in art that a fabric web can be made of a subset of textiles; or a metal mesh which is known in the art to include woven wire mesh, expanded metal, and/or perforated sheet mesh.
Regarding claim 20, Jones discloses the above insert element and further teaches wherein the indicator element (15) comprises at least one of an elastomeric material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insert element of Jones to include wherein the indicator element comprises of polyethylene, polypropylene, thermoplastic elastomers, polyamides, or polyethylene terephthalate in order to provide improvement of cost effectiveness, lightweight, high durability, and chemical resistance. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Jones further teaches that the insert element can be made of any elastomeric material such as polyurethane.
Regarding claim 21, Jones discloses wherein the indicator element (15, metal or metal mesh) and the surface layer comparatively (13, elastomeric material; column 2, line 50 – column 3, line 24) have different properties, including a different hardness, density, tear resistance, elongation at break, abrasion, rebound elasticity, compression set, tear propagation resistance, glass transition temperature, electrical conductivity and swelling.
Regarding claim 25, Jones discloses wherein the indicator element (15) is one of a plurality of indicator elements (15 and 18) distributed in a radial direction of the insert element (13, 15, 16, 18), and each indicator element (15 made of metal and 18 made of elastomeric material; column 3, lines 1-24 and column 4, lines 15-22) having different properties.
Regarding claims 26-28, Jones discloses wherein a ratio of a material thickness of the surface layer (13) and a material thickness of the indicator element (15) in a radial direction of the insert element (13, 15, 16, 18) is in a range smaller than 1 (Figures 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insert element of Jones to include a ratio of a material thickness of the surface layer and a material thickness of the indicator element in a radial direction of the insert element is in a range from 0.01 to 0.7, a range from .07 to 0.5; and/or a range from 0.1 to 0.3 in order to allow sufficient wear of the surface layer and continuance of operation up to an allowable thickness. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 29-31, Jones discloses wherein a ratio of a material thickness of the surface layer (13) and a material thickness of the fabric (fabric web 15) (“flexible textile fabric”, as described above) in a radial direction of the insert element (13, 15, 16, 18) is in a range smaller than 1 (Figures 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insert element of Jones to include a ratio of a material thickness of the surface layer and a material thickness of the fabric layer in a radial direction of the insert element is in a range from 0.8 to 9; the ratio is in a range of from 1 to 8; the ratio is in a range of from 2 to 7 in order to allow sufficient wear of the surface layer and continuance of operation up to an allowable thickness of the surface layer and some of the fabric layer prior to stopping operation for replacement of the insert. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 32-34, Jones discloses wherein the surface layer (13) has a guide region (14; Figures 1-4) and two shoulder regions (left and right elevated regions on top surface side) adjacent to the guide region (14) on the first surface layer side in a cross-section transverse to a rope or cable guide direction, wherein the guide region (14) has a recess which is deepened by a recess spacing relative to at least one of the two shoulder regions, and wherein a ratio of a width of both shoulder regions in a cross-section transverse to the rope or cable guide direction and the recess spacing is in a range from 0.2 to 5; in a range of from 0.4 to 3; in a range of from 0.7 to 2.5.
Regarding claim 35, Jones discloses a rope or cable guide pulley, comprising: an insert element (13, 15, 16, 18) comprising a surface layer (13) with a first surface layer side (top surface of 13), configured to come into contact with a rope or cable to be guided, and a second surface layer side (bottom surface of 13) opposite the first surface layer side; an indicator element (15) arranged on and/or in the surface layer (13), wherein the indicator element (15) is configured to indicate a state of wear of the insert element (13, 15, 16, 18); and a rope guide area (14; Figure 1) for rotatable mounting of the rope; wherein the surface layer (13) comprises at least one of an elastomeric material (column 1, lines 36-37); wherein the indicator element (15) comprises at least one of a fabric web and a metal mesh configured to absorb radial forces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insert element of Jones to include the surface layer comprises at least one of styrene-butadiene rubber, natural rubber, acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, ethylene-propylene-diene rubber, hypalon, polybutadiene rubber, and fluororubber in order to provide a soft and deformable surface to prevent or reduce damage and wear to the rope; and to include the indicator element comprises at least one of a flexible textile fabric and a flexible wire mesh in order to improve flexibility and durability of the rubber insert. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Jones further teaches that the insert element including the surface layer can be made of any elastomeric material which is known in the art any material exhibiting rubber properties. Furthermore, Jones teaches that the insert element can be made of fabric web, which is known in art that a fabric web can be made of a subset of textiles; or a metal mesh which is known in the art to include woven wire mesh, expanded metal, and/or perforated sheet mesh.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Bando (JPH05293936A).
Regarding claim 22, Jones discloses the above insert element, but fails to teach wherein the indicator element comprises at least one of a fluorescent material, a colored ink, and a foil.
Bando teaches a similar insert element and further teaches wherein the indicator element (3; Figure 2) comprises at least one of a fluorescent material and a colored ink (Abstract; page 5, ¶0008-0009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insert element of Jones to include the fluorescent material or colored ink indicator element as taught by Bando in order to allow the user to easily recognize the level of wear of the insert.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Bartholet (EP3620340A1).
Regarding claim 23, Jones discloses the above insert element, but fails to teach at least one conductivity sensor configured to detect a voltage applied to the rope or cable passed through the insert element.
Bartholet teaches a similar insert element and further teaches at least one conductivity sensor (53, 53k; Figure 3) configured to detect a voltage applied to the rope or cable (101) passed through the insert element (3, 53k, 53m; page 9, ¶3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insert element of Jones to include the conductivity sensor as taught by Bartholet in order to detect the position of the rope in the direction of the axis of rotation and detect the wear state of the insert.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Schultz (US0829898A).
Regarding claim 24, Jones discloses the above insert element, but fails to teach wherein the indicator element comprises at least one metal rod.
Schultz teaches a similar insert element and further teaches wherein the indicator element comprises at least one metal rod (E; Figures 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insert element of Jones to include the metal rod indicator element as taught by Schultz in order to reinforce and maintain parts of the insert when excessive wear and/or breakage is experienced.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Smith (US20150300959A1).
Regarding claim 36, Jones discloses the above insert element and further teaches a method of manufacturing the insert element (13, 15, 16, 18) for guiding a rope or cable, the method comprising: providing the indicator element (15); applying the indicator element (15) in or on the surface layer (13); and wherein the indicator element (15) is configured to indicate the state of wear of the insert element (13, 15, 16, 18)., but fails to teach vulcanization of the indicator element and the surface layer.
Smith teaches a similar insert element and further teaches the method of vulcanization of the indicator element (4; Figures 1-2) and the surface layer (3; ¶0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insert element of Jones to include the method of vulcanization of the indicator element and surface layer in order to chemically bond the layers together to form a solid single piece and prevent detachment of the layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 with respect to claims 1 and 35 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 35, in the last two paragraphs of page 9, in page 10, and in the first five paragraphs of page 11, the applicant argued that there is no disclosure in Bartholet, Jones, and Smith wherein the surface layer comprises at least one of styrene-butadiene rubber, natural rubber, acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, ethylene-propylene-diene rubber, hypalon, polybutadiene rubber, and fluororubber; and indicator element comprises at least one of a flexible textile fabric and a flexible wire mesh configured to absorb radial forces.
The examiner construed that the disclosure of Bartholet teaches the surface layer comprises rubber material, but agrees that Bartholet fails to teach wherein the surface layer comprises at least one of styrene-butadiene rubber, natural rubber, acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, ethylene-propylene-diene rubber, hypalon, polybutadiene rubber, and fluororubber; and indicator element comprises at least one of a flexible textile fabric and a flexible wire mesh configured to absorb radial forces. The examiner construed that the disclosure of Smith teaches the surface layer comprises at least one of styrene-butadiene rubber, natural rubber, and acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, but fails to teach wherein the indicator element comprises at least one of a flexible textile fabric and a flexible wire mesh configured to absorb radial forces. The examiner construed that the disclosure of Jones teaches wherein the surface layer (13) comprises at least one of an elastomeric material (column 1, lines 36-37). Although, at least one of styrene-butadiene rubber, natural rubber, acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, ethylene-propylene-diene rubber, hypalon, polybutadiene rubber, and fluororubber is not clearly disclosed, it is not novel since Jones teaches that the insert element including the surface layer can be made of any elastomeric material which is known in the art to be any material exhibiting rubber properties in order to provide a soft and deformable surface to prevent or reduce damage and wear to the rope. The examiner further construed that the disclosure of Jones teaches wherein the indicator element (15) comprises at least one of a fabric web and a metal mesh configured to absorb radial forces. Although, at least one of a flexible textile fabric and a flexible wire mesh is not clearly disclosed, it is not novel since Jones teaches an indicator element of a fabric web, which is known in art that a fabric web can be made of a subset of textiles and/or a metal mesh which is known in the art to include woven wire mesh, expanded metal, and/or perforated sheet mesh in order to improve flexibility and durability of the rubber insert. Thus, contradicting to applicant’s assertions, such amendment does not overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
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 HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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 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.
/H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights