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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Claim interpretation
Claim 1 recites, “…wherein each said branch is connected to said main body and is deformable…”, to allow a length of rope to enter into a seat. Applicants’ specification sets forth, “the branch defining the seat may be temporarily and/or partially deformable, preferably elastically deformable”. The specification further sets forth, the separator element is made of metal material such as steel or plastic. Given this, one of ordinary skill interprets deformable to be as broad as a material characteristic of a material property in its elastic region of its stress/strain curve, which is in-line with the separator being steel/plastic as set forth in applicant’s specification.
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 separator element being integral (one piece) with element 1 or 2 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “or being integral with said first element and/or second element of the hoist”. The original disclosure states an alternative of the separator element being one piece with the first element and/or second element (e.g. pg. 4, lines 10-15, made of one piece). ‘One-piece’ and ‘integral’ are not the same scope. As such, applicant introduced unsupported scope into the claims. Further, as noted above via the drawing objections, an integral or one-piece embodiment is not shown, at least in line with the spirit of the invention. As such, the examiner asserts this is considered new matter.
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 1-20 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 recites, “or being integral with said first element and/or second element of the hoist”. The original disclosure states an alternative for the separator element being one piece with the first element and/or second element (e.g. pg. 4, lines 10-15, made of one piece). ‘One-piece’ and ‘integral’ are not the same scope. As such, applicant introduced undefined scope into the claims. Further, as noted above via the drawing objections, an integral or one-piece embodiment is not shown, at least in line with the spirit of the invention. As disclosed and claimed, it is unclear as to the meets and bounds of what encompasses ‘integral’ with the first or second element.
Claim 6 recites, “wherein each said branch is at least partially deformable”. However, Claim 1 previous introduces “each said branch…is deformable”. As such, it is unclear as to the intent and scope of the claim 6 recitation. It appears redundant and may be struck from the claim to remove the concern of the scope.
Claim 12 introduces “a first element…a second element”, but also brings in the separator element of claim 1, which already introduces a first and second element. As such, claim 12 is creating a potential double inclusion situation, and in this instance, makes the claim unclear, and intended scope ambiguous at best. See MPEP 2173.05(o).
Claim 17 recites, “…of the hoist of claim 12…” in the preamble. However, it is unclear what elements are being positively referred back to for inclusion into the scope of claim 17. As such, the meets and bounds can not be ascertained.
Dependent claims not addressed above are rejected due to dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by McDonald (US 359,025).
Re claim 1, McDonald discloses a separator element (figs 1-4)) configured to be interposed between a first element (fig 1) and a second element (fig 1) of a hoist (fig 1, this device is enabled to be used with a hoist/pulley system, further, it is noted, the preamble for claim 1 is given little weight as constructed) said separator element comprising a main body (at least length d to k, fig 2) and at least two seats (fig 2), each for the passage of a corresponding length (fig 1) of a rope through said separator element ,wherein a plurality of branches (figs 2-4) define said at least two seats, and wherein each said branch is connected to said main body and is deformable to allow a length of the rope to enter a corresponding one of the seats.
RE 2. wherein said separator element (fig 1) is movably interposed between said first element (fig 1) and said second element (fig 1, in-between the two pulleys).
Re 3. wherein said at least two seats (figs 1-4) are configured for a passage of a corresponding one of said lengths of said rope through said separator element (1).
Re 4. wherein each of said at least two seats (figs 2-4) has an open section.
Re 5. The separator element according to claim 4, wherein a plurality of branches (figs 2-4) define said at least two seats, wherein each said branch is connected to said main body and has a free end, said free end spaced from said main body by a corresponding opening having a width less than a diameter of said rope (fig 2).
RE 6. The separator element according to claim 5, wherein each said branch is at least partially deformable (the separator is deformable at least to some degree given its material property) to allow insertion of a corresponding length of the rope into a corresponding one of the seats.
RE 7, The separator element according to claim 5, wherein the free end of each said branch (fig 2) is temporarily deformable to allow a length of the rope to enter a corresponding one of the seats.
Re 8. The separator element (1) according to claim 3, wherein said at least two seats include closed sections that define through holes in said main body figs (1-4).
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.
Given the rejections above under 112, claims impacted are rejected as best understood below.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Luckhurst (US 1,080,640) in view of Guihard (US 2013/0056696 A1).
Claim 1, Luckhurst discloses a separator element (device “a”; specification, p.1: “I provide a device a, for attachment to a block b”) adapted to be used in a hoist (block and tackle for hoisting and lowering lifeboats; specification, p.1: “This invention relates to sheave blocks in use with tackle in hoisting and lowering life boats, and other weights”), comprising:
a main body (device “a” being plate-shaped in form; specification, p.1: “The device is preferably plate-shaped in form, as more particularly shown in Fig. 2”);
at least two seats (apertures “e”) at least partially defined by said main body, for passage of corresponding lengths of a rope (“d”) of said hoist through said separator element (specification, p.1: “so that the rope d, may be rove through the apertures e, at each side of the device, and be separated by divisions f”);
structural divisions (“f”) that separate the rope segments from one another (specification, p.1: “be separated by divisions f”), said divisions constituting material of the main body between adjacent apertures;
wherein said seats are located in laterally-extending portions projecting outward from the block at each side and tangential to the periphery thereof (specification, p.1);
wherein said apertures correspond in number with the number of sheaves in said block and are in alignment therewith (claim: “each of said projecting portions being provided with a plurality of apertures corresponding in number with the number of sheaves in said block and in alinement therewith”);
the walls of said apertures being adapted to engage the rope above said block, whereby the rope is held in fixed position at a sufficient distance above the sheave to prevent the block toppling when relieved of a load, and the consequent fouling of the rope (specification, p.1; claim).
Luckhurst does not expressly disclose that the seats have an open section defined by a plurality of branches extending from the main body, wherein each branch has a free end defining an opening in the seat with a width lower than the diameter of said rope, and wherein each branch is deformable to allow lateral insertion of the rope into the seat. Specifically, Luckhurst’s apertures (“e”) are closed through-holes requiring the rope to be threaded (rove) end-first therethrough.
Guihard teaches a rope guiding device (2) comprising a body with guiding lumens (7) for receiving and retaining a rope (8), and passage openings (15) that emerge into each guiding lumen (Figs. 3 and 4; ¶[0024]: “first and second passage openings each respectively emerging in one of the guiding lumens, each of the first and second passage openings being arranged to allow the insertion of the second rope into the corresponding guiding lumen”).
As depicted in Guihard Figures 3 and 4, the passage openings (15) define split, open channels leading into the lumens (7). The material walls of the body on either side of each passage opening (15) form arm- or branch-like portions that extend from the main body and partially define the lumen, with each passage opening having an open end (the free end of the branch-like wall) that defines an access point into the lumen.
Guihard expressly teaches that these passage openings may be configured to “delimit a passage having a width smaller than the diameter of the second rope 8 so as to ensure retaining of the latter in each guiding lumen 7” (¶[0066]). Guihard further teaches that insertion of the rope into the lumen through the passage opening requires “crushing” — i.e., temporarily deforming — the rope or the adjacent material to allow the rope to pass laterally through the narrowed opening (¶[0069]: “this step requiring crushing of each strand of the loop at the retaining lugs 18 to allow the insertion of the loop”; ¶[0070]: “this step requiring, if the guiding device is provided with retaining bosses 16, crushing each strand of the loop at the corresponding retaining boss 16”; ¶[0074]).
Guihard provides express motivation for this open-channel configuration: it permits “easy and quick insertion of the second rope into the guiding lumens, without requiring orientation of the closed loop of the second rope successively in a large number of different directions” (¶[0025]). That is, the open passage eliminates the need to thread the rope end-first through a closed hole, greatly simplifying assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closed apertures (“e”) of Luckhurst’s plate (“a”) to instead be open-section channels defined by branch-like wall portions of the plate body — as taught by Guihard’s passage openings (15) depicted in Figures 3 and 4 — with each opening having a width smaller than the rope diameter, said branch-like portions being deformable (or requiring deformation of the rope) to allow lateral insertion of the rope into the channel.
Motivation: Guihard expressly teaches that the open-channel configuration allows easy and quick lateral insertion of the rope (¶[0025]), without requiring the rope to be laboriously threaded end-first through a closed aperture. Applied to Luckhurst, this modification would significantly simplify the rigging process in a block and tackle system, where threading rope ends through small closed holes is time-consuming, particularly in the field conditions (lifeboat handling at sea) contemplated by Luckhurst. The resulting structure — a plate body with branch-like wall portions defining open-section seats having openings narrower than the rope — reads on all structural limitations of claim 1, and yields the predictable result of allowing lateral rope loading while retaining the rope during operation.
See MPEP § 2143(I)(D) — applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Furthermore, configuring the passage opening width to be less than the rope diameter, as expressly taught by Guihard (¶[0066]), ensures that the rope is retained in the channel during operation and does not accidentally escape, satisfying the claimed limitation that the opening has a width lower than the diameter of said rope. The deformability of the branch-like portions (or of the rope at the opening) to allow insertion is inherent to the geometry of an opening narrower than the object passing through it, and is expressly contemplated by Guihard’s description of “crushing” at the retaining features during insertion (¶[0069]–[0070], ¶[0074]).
Claim 2, Luckhurst discloses the separator element (plate “a”) constrained to one block (“b”) of the tackle by screws or bolts (“c”) (specification, p.1: “secured to said block by screws, or bolts c”). Luckhurst’s plate is interposed in the rope path between the upper and lower blocks (Fig. 1), but is rigidly fixed to one block rather than movably interposed.
Luckhurst does not expressly disclose that the separator element is movably interposed (i.e., capable of sliding) between the first and second elements.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the separator element as movable (slidable) between the two hoist elements rather than permanently fixed to one. Making a fixed component separable or detachable involves only the exercise of ordinary mechanical skill. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)©; In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961) (holding that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art where the results would have been predictable). Once the separator is decoupled from the block and threaded on the rope lengths (facilitated by the open-section seats of modified Luckhurst per the rejection of claim 1 above), it is inherently capable of sliding along the rope lengths between the first and second elements.
Motivation: A movable separator element allows a user to slide the separator along the rope runs to inspect the rope paths between the upper and lower blocks, verifying correct routing before applying load. This would be particularly advantageous in Luckhurst’s application of lifeboat handling, where correct tackle rigging is critical to safety and speed
Claim 3, Luckhurst discloses apertures (“e”) through which the tackle rope (“d”) is rove. As depicted in Figure 1 of Luckhurst, when the block and tackle is under tension (i.e., supporting a load), the rope lengths extend in a substantially rectilinear (vertical) direction between the two blocks, and the apertures (“e”) of the plate extend through the plate in a direction parallel to and coinciding with the rope length direction. The rope passes vertically through the apertures when the tackle is loaded. This geometric relationship is inherent in the depicted configuration — a plate oriented perpendicular to the rope runs necessarily has its apertures aligned with the rope direction.
Luckhurst discloses this limitation. In combination with Guihard as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, claim 3 is rendered obvious.
Claim 4, Luckhurst discloses a plate-shaped separator element (specification, p.1: “The device is preferably plate-shaped in form”) with apertures (“e”) extending through the plate. As depicted in Figures 2 and 3 of Luckhurst, the plate lies in a plane (the extension plane) that is perpendicular to the rope lengths, and the rope passes through the apertures in a direction substantially perpendicular to the plane of the plate. The apertures necessarily extend within/along the plane of the plate (their cross-sections lie in the extension plane) while providing passage for the rope in a direction perpendicular to that plane.
Luckhurst discloses this limitation. In combination with Guihard as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, claim 4 is rendered obvious.
Claim 5, Luckhurst discloses apertures (“e”) through which the rope (“d”) is rove and within which the rope may slide during tackle operation. It is inherent that the apertures have an internal cross-sectional dimension (extension in the plane of the plate) greater than the cross-section of the rope — otherwise the rope could not be rove through and could not slide freely during hoisting/lowering operations. An aperture that is the same size as or smaller than the rope would create a binding condition incompatible with the function of a block and tackle. Furthermore, Luckhurst’s claim recites that “the walls of said apertures being adapted to engage the rope above said block” — the use of “engage” rather than “bind” or “grip” implies the rope has clearance to move while being positionally engaged (guided) by the aperture walls.
Luckhurst therefore inherently discloses this limitation. In combination with Guihard as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, claim 5 is rendered obvious.
Claim 6, Luckhurst does not expressly disclose the specific dimensional relationship that the seat extension exceeds 125% of the rope section.
However, the ratio of seat extension to rope cross-section is a result-effective variable: a seat that is too small relative to the rope creates excessive friction and binding, while a seat that is too large relative to the rope fails to adequately separate and guide the rope lengths. A person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize this ratio through routine experimentation to balance free rope sliding against adequate positional guidance.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980) (holding that the discovery of an optimum value of a result-effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art).
Motivation: Configuring the seat extension to be higher than 125% of the rope section provides sufficient clearance for the rope to slide freely through the seat without jamming, particularly when the system is under load and the rope may expand slightly or shift laterally.
In combination with the teachings of Luckhurst and Guihard as set forth above, claim 6 is rendered obvious.
Claim 7, Luckhurst, as modified by Guihard teaches (Figs. 3–4) passage openings (15) with contoured walls leading into the guiding lumens (7). The walls flanking each passage opening create a geometry that guides the rope from outside the device into the lumen. While Guihard does not expressly use the term “pilot portion,” the physical structure of the passage opening walls inherently provides a lead-in surface that directs the rope into the lumen.
Luckhurst and Guihard do not expressly disclose that the free end of the branch is specifically curved and tapered.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to shape the free end of the branch with a curved and tapered pilot portion to facilitate rope insertion. Changes in shape are a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, providing tapered or curved lead-in surfaces on elements that receive other components is a well-established mechanical design principle for ease of assembly and reduction of insertion force.
Motivation: A curved and tapered free end reduces the insertion force required to push the rope past the branch into the seat, minimizes the risk of rope damage (abrasion or cutting) during insertion, and provides a smooth cam surface that naturally guides the rope into the seat.
In combination with Luckhurst and Guihard as set forth above, claim 7 is rendered obvious.
Claim 8, Luckhurst, as modified by Guihard teaches that the passage openings may be configured to have “a width smaller than the diameter of the second rope 8 so as to ensure retaining of the latter in each guiding lumen 7” (¶[0066]), but does not expressly disclose the specific ratio of less than 70% of the rope diameter.
However, the specific ratio of opening width to rope diameter is a result-effective variable that directly affects two competing design goals: (1) ease of rope insertion (wider opening = easier insertion), and (2) security of rope retention (narrower opening = more secure retention against accidental escape). A person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize this ratio to balance these competing design goals based on the specific rope material, diameter, and operational conditions.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (here, an opening narrower than the rope diameter), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980).
Motivation: Configuring the opening width to less than 70% of the rope diameter provides a substantial retention margin that securely prevents accidental rope escape during high-load hoist operations, while still permitting intentional insertion with moderate deformation force.
In combination with the teachings of Luckhurst and Guihard as set forth above, claim 8 is rendered obvious.
Claim 9, Luckhurst discloses connecting means in the form of screws or bolts (“c”) for coupling the plate (“a”) to the block (“b”) (specification, p.1: “secured to said block by screws, or bolts c”; see also specification, p.1: “the holes h, should be provided so that the device may be quickly attached to any block now in common use”). Screws and bolts are inherently reversible fasteners — they can be removed by the user to decouple the plate from the block.
Accordingly, Luckhurst discloses connecting means for reversibly coupling the separator element to one of the hoist elements. In combination with Guihard as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, claim 9 is rendered obvious.
In the alternative, to the extent that “reversibly coupling” is construed to require a tool-free coupling mechanism (e.g., interference fit, snap fit, or interlocking), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute tool-free reversible coupling means for Luckhurst’s bolted connection. The substitution of one known fastening method for another is within the ordinary skill of the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B) — simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The motivation is to allow rapid attachment and detachment in field conditions where tools may be unavailable, such as the maritime lifeboat-handling environment of Luckhurst or the work-at-height and rescue contexts that are analogous fields.
Claim 10, Luckhurst discloses reversible coupling means (bolts “c” through holes “h”) but does not expressly disclose a slot configured to receive a portion of the hoist element by interference fit.
However, interference-fit slot connections — where a portion of one component is received in a slot of another component and retained by frictional engagement — are well-known reversible fastening mechanisms in the mechanical arts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the connecting means as a slot configured to receive a coupling portion of the hoist element by interference fit, as a simple substitution of one known fastening mechanism for another. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B) — simple substitution of one known element (bolted connection) for another known element (interference-fit slot connection) to obtain predictable results (reversible coupling of two components).
Motivation: A slot-type interference coupling provides a tool-free, quick-release connection that can be engaged and disengaged rapidly by hand, which is advantageous for field use where tools may not be readily accessible and speed of setup is critical.
In combination with Luckhurst and Guihard as set forth above, claim 10 is rendered obvious.
Claim 11, Luckhurst expressly teaches that the number of apertures corresponds to the number of sheaves: “each of said projecting portions being provided with a plurality of apertures corresponding in number with the number of sheaves in said block and in alinement therewith” (claim). Multi-sheave blocks having two sheaves per block (resulting in four total rope passes between two blocks, i.e., a 4:1 mechanical advantage system) are well-established in the hoisting and rigging arts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide four seats in the separator element for use with a four-pass hoist (i.e., a hoist in which each block has two sheaves). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960). Here, providing four seats instead of two merely scales the separator element to accommodate a higher-mechanical-advantage hoist configuration, with the predictable result of separating four rope lengths instead of two.
Motivation: A four-seat separator accommodates a 4:1 mechanical advantage hoist, allowing heavier loads to be moved with less operator force — a common and desirable configuration in professional hoisting applications.
In combination with Luckhurst and Guihard as set forth above, claim 11 is rendered obvious.
Claim 12, Luckhurst discloses a hoist (block and tackle system, Fig. 1) for moving a load (lifeboats and other weights; specification, p.1: “sheave blocks in use with tackle in hoisting and lowering life boats, and other weights”), comprising:
a first element (one block of the tackle, Fig. 1) comprising at least one first pulley (sheave therein);
a second element (second block “b” of the tackle, Fig. 1) comprising at least one second pulley (sheave therein);
the separator element (plate “a”) interposed in the rope path between said first and second elements, through which rope lengths pass (apertures “e” with divisions “f”);
a rope (“d”) constrained within the tackle system, passing through said sheaves to define a length at each passage between said first and second elements (Fig. 1, depicting the tackle rope making multiple passes between the two blocks);
said rope comprising a free end (hauling end — inherent in all block and tackle systems) configured to be operated by a user for moving said load;
wherein each length of the rope passes through a respective aperture (“e”) of said separator element (claim: “the walls of said apertures being adapted to engage the rope above said block”).
Luckhurst does not expressly disclose the separator element having open-section seats defined by deformable branches as required by the incorporation of claim 1’s limitations.
Guihard teaches the open-channel configuration with passage openings (15) having a width smaller than the rope diameter, as set forth in detail in the rejection of claim 1 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the hoist of Luckhurst such that the plate’s closed apertures are replaced with open-section seats defined by branch-like wall portions having openings narrower than the rope diameter, as taught by Guihard (Figs. 3–4; ¶[0025], ¶[0066]), for the same reasons and motivations set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The combination of Luckhurst and Guihard renders obvious all limitations of claim 12.
Claim 13, Luckhurst discloses that the plate (“a”) is secured to the block (“b”) by screws or bolts (“c”) through holes (“h”) (specification, p.1: “the holes h, should be provided so that the device may be quickly attached to any block now in common use”). The block necessarily includes corresponding receiving features (i.e., threaded holes or through-bores constituting coupling portions) that receive the bolts and thereby enable coupling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the first or second element of the hoist with a coupling portion (e.g., a projecting tab, boss, or rail) configured to cooperate with connecting means (e.g., a slot) on the separator element to achieve a reversible coupling, as a simple substitution of one known reversible fastening configuration for another. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). The motivation is to enable tool-free, rapid attachment/detachment for field use, inspection, and verification operations, as set forth in the rejections of claims 9–10 above.
In combination with Luckhurst and Guihard as set forth above, claim 13 is rendered obvious.
Claim 14, Luckhurst expressly teaches that the number of apertures scales with the number of sheaves (claim: “apertures corresponding in number with the number of sheaves in said block”). Multi-sheave blocks having two sheaves per block (creating a 4:1 mechanical advantage) are standard and well-known in the hoisting and rigging arts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the separator element in a hoist having two first pulleys and two second pulleys (a 4:1 hoist configuration). Providing a known number of sheaves per block and scaling the separator seats accordingly produces the predictable result of separating each of the four rope lengths. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) — combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; see also MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (duplication of parts).
Motivation: A 4:1 configuration provides greater mechanical advantage, enabling heavier loads to be moved with less operator effort — a standard and well-known benefit in the hoisting arts.
In combination with Luckhurst and Guihard as set forth above, claim 14 is rendered obvious.
Claim 15, The Examiner takes Official Notice that locking mechanisms such as toothed cams, rope clutches, and ratchet devices that selectively prevent rope sliding in hoist and pulley systems were well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Such locking elements are standard safety components in hoisting equipment, particularly in devices used for lifting or lowering persons and heavy loads. See MPEP § 2144.03(A) (Official Notice of facts not in the record; the fact noticed must be capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a locking element (e.g., a toothed cam) in one of the hoist elements of Luckhurst to selectively prevent rope sliding and thereby hold the load stationary when no tension is applied to the free end.
Motivation: Preventing uncontrolled descent or free-fall of the load (lifeboats, persons) in the absence of operator input on the hauling end is a fundamental safety requirement in hoisting operations. A locking element satisfies this requirement.
Should Applicant traverse this Official Notice, the Examiner will provide documentary evidence in the next Office Action. See MPEP § 2144.03©.
In combination with Luckhurst and Guihard as set forth above, claim 15 is rendered obvious.
Claim 16, Luckhurst, as modified, does not expressly disclose a protection element (e.g., bag, sheath, or spat) containing the rope lengths.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that protective covers, sleeves, bags, and sheaths for containing and organizing rope or cable runs in hoisting, rigging, and climbing systems were well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Such protection elements serve to prevent rope tangling during storage and transport and are commonly used in professional equipment for work at height and rescue. See MPEP § 2144.03(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the hoist of Luckhurst with a protection element (e.g., a fabric bag or sheath) connected to one of the hoist elements and extending in the gap between the elements to contain the rope lengths and separate them from the free end.
Motivation: Minimizing tangling during transport and storage is desirable when the hoist is stowed with other equipment (e.g., in a locker aboard a vessel in Luckhurst’s context). The protection element reduces setup time by maintaining rope order during periods of non-use.
Should Applicant traverse this Official Notice, the Examiner will provide documentary evidence in the next Office Action. See MPEP § 2144.03©.
In combination with Luckhurst and Guihard as set forth above, claim 16 is rendered obvious.
Claim 17, Luckhurst discloses a separator element (plate “a”) with individual apertures (“e”) for each rope length, having the express purpose of preventing fouling (specification, p.1: “the rope is held in fixed position at a sufficient distance above the sheave to prevent the block toppling when relieved of a load, and the consequent fouling of the rope”). The presence of discrete, individual apertures for each rope length inherently provides a physical and visual means of identifying whether each rope length is correctly positioned — a rope that is not in its designated aperture, or a free end incorrectly routed between working lengths, would be immediately apparent at the separator element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the separator element as a means of identifying wrong positioning of rope lengths and/or improper insertion of the free end between the working lengths. This use follows naturally from the presence of individual seats for each rope run: a user rigging the tackle would naturally verify that each rope length passes through its correct aperture before applying a load. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) — combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Motivation: Confirming correct rope routing before loading is a basic safety precaution in hoisting operations involving heavy loads and personnel. The separator element facilitates this verification by providing distinct reference positions for each rope length.
In combination with Luckhurst and Guihard as set forth above, claim 17 is rendered obvious.
Claim 18, Luckhurst does not expressly disclose sliding the separator element along the rope lengths.
However, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above, it would have been obvious to make the separator element movable (slidable) between the first and second elements. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)©; In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961).
Given a movable separator element positioned on the rope lengths between two blocks, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to slide the separator element along the rope lengths from one hoist element toward the other as a verification step. The rationale is that if the separator element slides freely without obstruction from one block to the other, the rope paths are confirmed to be correctly routed (no crossings, tangles, or interposed free ends). Conversely, if sliding is obstructed, a routing error is indicated. This use is an intuitive and logical application of a slidable element threaded on multiple parallel lines — analogous to sliding a bead or ring along a cord to check for knots.
See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) — combining prior art elements (slidable separator + verification technique) according to known methods to yield predictable results (detection of misrouting).
Motivation: Sliding the separator provides a quick, systematic, and reliable method for confirming correct hoist configuration that does not require visual inspection of the full rope length, which may be impractical when blocks are far apart or in low-visibility conditions (maritime, rescue at height).
In combination with Luckhurst and Guihard as set forth above, claim 18 is rendered obvious.
Claim 19, Luckhurst discloses that the plate (“a”) is coupled to the block (“b”) by screws or bolts (“c”) through holes (“h”) (specification, p.1). Bolts are inherently reversible — they can be removed (decoupling) and reinstalled (coupling).
As set forth in the rejections of claims 9–10 above, it would have been obvious to provide reversible (preferably tool-free) coupling means. Given the obvious desirability of sliding the separator element for verification (claim 18), the method would necessarily include: (1) a preliminary step of decoupling the separator from the hoist element to free it for sliding, and (2) a final step of re-coupling the separator to the hoist element after verification is complete to secure it during load-moving operations. This sequence (decouple → slide/verify → re-couple) represents the natural, logical, and predictable order of operations for using a detachable verification tool.
See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) — combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Motivation: Coupling the separator element to the hoist element during normal operation prevents the separator from interfering with hoist function (e.g., sliding into the pulleys), while decoupling for verification allows the full rope path to be checked.
In combination with Luckhurst and Guihard as set forth above, claim 19 is rendered obvious.
Claim 20, Luckhurst does not expressly disclose a restoring step following identification of incorrect positioning.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that upon identifying wrong positioning of the rope lengths or improper insertion of the free end (the identifying step of claim 17), the immediately subsequent step is to correct the identified error — i.e., to restore the correct positioning of the rope lengths and/or extract any improperly inserted free end. This corrective action is the natural, expected, and safety-motivated response to identification of a rigging error. No person of ordinary skill would identify a tangle or misrouting in a load-bearing hoist and then proceed to apply a load without first correcting the error.
See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) — combining known process steps (identify error → correct error) according to known methods to yield predictable results (safe, correctly-configured hoist ready for use).
Motivation: Safety — a hoist with incorrectly routed rope lengths poses risk of malfunction, jamming, or free-fall of the load. Restoring correct configuration is essential before any load-moving operation.
In combination with Luckhurst and Guihard as set forth above, claim 20 is rendered obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua J Michener whose telephone number is (571)272-1467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30am - 4pm EST.
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, TC 3600 Director Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
JOSHUA J. MICHENER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights