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,
In lines 2-3 of claim 12, “the electronic control unit contains position sensors for detecting the angular positions of the shafts”. Position sensors are not shown in any of the Figures, including new Figure 9. This feature should be clearly shown in the figures in order to help the public understand the invention without having to read the specification.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
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) 1, 3-5, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (CN102774763A) in view of Chen (CN104150390A).
Regarding claim 1, Tan discloses a rotary drive, being a winch supported on a support frame (page 3, ¶1, rig chassis), the rotary drive further comprising: two parallel rotary motors (1, 8) that can be operated independently, each of which being a hydraulic motor (page 2, last paragraph) that has a housing (MH; see Tan annotated Figure 1 below) and a shaft (MS, 6); and wherein, the motor housings (MH) are each “indirectly” connected to the drum (3) for conjoint rotation; and wherein, reversible freewheel couplings (4, 5) are placed in the force-transfer path between the shafts (MS, 6) and the support frame (freewheel couplings 4,5 are positioned within the area between the frame chassis and shaft), and wherein, the respective shafts (MS, 6) are “indirectly” connected to the support frame in a force-transferring manner (the shafts MS,6 are indirectly connected and rotate in relation to the chassis), but fails to teach rotary vane motors.
PNG
media_image1.png
310
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tan, Annotated Figure 1
Chen teaches a similar rotary drive and further teaches a rotary vane motor (1; Figure 1; page 4, ¶10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify both rotary hydraulic motors of Tan to include the rotary vane motor as taught by Chen in order to provide an improved motor with high rotating speed, high efficiency in the low-pressure condition, and reduced footprint.
Regarding claim 3, Tan discloses wherein the freewheel couplings (4, 5) can be fully released, such that no forces are transferred to the support frame (page 3, ¶4).
Regarding claim 4, Tan discloses wherein the freewheel couplings (4, 5) each have a housing (FH; see Tan annotated Figure 1 above) that is “indirectly” connected to the support frame for conjoint rotation.
Regarding claim 5, Tan discloses wherein the freewheel couplings (4, 5) each have a coupling rotor (CR; see Tan annotated Figure 1 below) connected to the shafts (MS, 6) for conjoint rotation, which can be connected for force transfer to the coupling housings (FH) by coupling elements (CE) that can be switched to different settings.
PNG
media_image2.png
134
250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tan, Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 13, Tan discloses the above rotary drive and further teaches wherein the drum (3) is a drum tube, but fails to teach wherein the rotary vane motors are in the drum tube.
Chen teaches a similar rotary drive and further teaches wherein the rotary vane motor (1) is in the drum tube (4; Figure 1; page 4, ¶10, motor, supporting shaft and brake 1, 21, and 3 is an integral structure positioned within the drum tube 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify both rotary motors of Tan to include the rotary vane motor as taught by Chen in order to reduce the overall footprint of the rotary drive.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan, in view of Chen, and in further view of Kellenberger (US1672323A).
Regarding claim 6, modified Tan discloses the above rotary drive, but fails to teach wherein the freewheel couplings are each pawl freewheel couplings.
Kellenberger teaches a similar rotary drive and further teaches wherein the freewheel coupling (d-g; Figure 1; freewheel couplings 4,5 of Tan) are each pawl (g) freewheel coupling (d-g; freewheel couplings 4,5 of Tan). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary drive of Tan to include the pawl freewheel coupling as taught by Kellenberger in order to block rotation of the drum in one direction and allow rotation in the opposite direction.
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan, in view of Chen, and in further view of Honjo (US20200283274A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tan discloses the above rotary drive and further teaches wherein the freewheel couplings (4, 5) can each be switched between settings, but fails to teach wherein the freewheel couplings can each be switched between settings by means of a fluid.
Honjo teaches a similar rotary drive and further teaches wherein the freewheel coupling (40; Figure 2) can each be switched between settings by means of a fluid (¶0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the freewheel couplings of Tan to include the freewheel coupling setting switching by fluid as taught by Honja in order to provide a simple, efficient, and safe power source.
Regarding claim 8, modified Tan discloses the above rotary drive and further teaches a fluid circuit with the rotary vane motors (1, 8; 1 of Chen), but fails to teach valves dedicated to the freewheel couplings for controlling the fluid supply to the rotary vane motors and the freewheel couplings.
Honjo teaches a similar rotary drive and further teaches valves (23-26, 48-49; Figure 2) dedicated to the freewheel coupling (40; freewheel couplings 4,5 of Tan) for controlling the fluid supply to the rotary vane motors (1,8; 1 of Chen) and the freewheel couplings (40; freewheel couplings 4,5 of Tan). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary drive of Tan to include the fluid circuit valves as taught by Honjo in order to control hydraulic pressure and operation of the freewheel couplings and rotary vane motors.
Regarding claims 9-11, modified Tan discloses the above rotary drive and further teaches wherein the hydraulic control unit for the fluid circuit is configured such that the rotary vane motors (1, 8; 1 of Chen) continuously drive the drum (3); wherein the hydraulic control unit is configured to control the fluid circuit such that the rotary vane motors (1, 8; 1 of Chen) drive the drum simultaneously (page 3, ¶4), but fails to teach an electronic control unit for the valves in the fluid circuit.
Honjo teaches a similar rotary drive and further teaches an electronic control unit (60; Figure 2) for the valves (23-26, 48-49) in the fluid circuit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary drive of Tan to include the electronic control unit as taught by Honjo in order to direct commands/operations to the valves in a quick and efficient manner.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan, in view of Chen, in view of Honjo, and in further view of Sanders (US20050072965A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Tan discloses the above rotary drive, but fails to teach wherein the electronic control unit contains position sensors for detecting the angular positions of the shafts in relation to the respective housings for the rotary vane motors.
Sanders teaches a similar rotary drive and further teaches wherein the electronic control unit (46; Figure 1) contains rotational speed sensors (50; 710; Figures 1 and 7; ¶0022, hall-effect sensors 50, 710 or similar type sensors measure rotations and speed) for detecting the angular speed of the shafts (30; 706) in relation to the respective housings for the rotary vane motors (700; 1 of Chen). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary drive of Tan to include the position sensors in order to determine whether the winch motor shaft is rotating or stationary. Sanders teaches Hall-effect magnetic sensors that utilize pulse signals to determine rotations of the motor shaft, and is known in the art that Hall-effect sensors are utilized to detect angular position of the motor shaft by detecting permanent magnets attached to the motor shaft.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the last paragraph of page 9 and in pages 10-12, the applicant argued that the disclosures of Tan, Xiao, Kellenberger, Honjo, and Sanders fail to teach two parallel rotary vane motors that can be operated independently, each of which being a hydraulic motor.
The examiner construed that the disclosure of Tan teaches two parallel rotary hydraulic motors that can be operated independently, however, agrees that Tan fails to teach rotary vane motors. The examiner further agrees that the disclosures of Xiao, Kellenberger, Honjo, and Sanders fail to teach rotary vane motors. However, the examiner construed that the disclosure of Chen teaches the limitation, as described above. Thus, contradicting to applicant’s assertions, such amendment does not overcome the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including for disclosing wherein the two rotary vane motors are located axially between the two freewheel couplings.
Tan is the closest prior art and teaches the rotary drive as described above, but fails to teach wherein the two rotary vane motors are located axially between the two freewheel couplings, since the rotary motors of Tan are positioned on opposite sides of the two freewheel couplings.
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