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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 4, lines 6-8, reference is made to specific claims (e.g. claims 1, 12 and 17) which is improper and should be deleted; and on page 15, line 27, it appears that “communication means” should be changed to ---connection means---.
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 7 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.
With respect to claim 7, it is unclear as to what is meant by each branch being “temporarily deformable”. Do the branches become undeformable at some point?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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) 1-4, 8, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Waisanen (U.S. Patent Application Publication no. US2020/0087120 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Waisanen discloses a separator element 70 configured to be interposed between a first element and a second element of a hoist 10 or being integral with said first element 16 and/or said second element 18 of said hoist, said separator element comprising a main body 76,84 and at least two seats 80a,80b,80c,80f,80g, each for the passage of a corresponding length of a rope 62 through said separator element.
With respect to Claim 2, Waisanen discloses the separator element according to claim 1, wherein said separator element 70 is movably interposed between said first element and said second element.
With respect to Claim 3, Waisanen discloses the separator element according to claim 1, wherein said at least two seats 80a,80b,80c,80f,80g are configured for a passage of a corresponding one of said lengths of said rope 62 through said separator element 70.
With respect to Claim 4, Waisanen discloses tThe separator element according to claim 1, wherein each of said at least two seats 80a,80b,80c,80f,80g has an open section (groove sections thereof are open).
With respect to Claim 8, Waisanen discloses the separator element according to claim 3, wherein said at least two seats include closed sections (in Figs. 3 and 4, “closed sections” defined by seats 80a,80b,80c,80f,80g and elements 82) that define through holes in said main body.
With respect to Claim 9, Waisanen discloses the separator according to claim 1, further comprising connecting means 72 for reversibly coupling said separator element to one of said first element and second element of said hoist.
With respect to Claim 11, Waisanen discloses the separator element according to claim 1, wherein said at least two seats comprise four said seats 80a,80b,80c,80f,80g for the passage of four corresponding lengths of said rope 62 therethrough.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 10 and 12-20 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.
Claim 5 is allowed 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 a plurality of branches 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.
Claims 6, 7 and 20 are allowed by virtue of their dependence from claim 5.
Claim 10 is allowed 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 said connecting means comprising a slot configured to least partially accommodate therein one of said first element and second element for reversibly coupling said separator element to said first element or second element.
Claim 12 is allowed 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 said free end configured to be operated by a user for moving said load wherein each length of the rope passes through a respective seat of said separator element.
Claims 13-19 are allowed by virtue of their dependence from claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art show various hoisting assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL M MARCELO whose telephone number is (571)272-6949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 am-3:30pm 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, 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.
/EMMANUEL M MARCELO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/emm/