9DETAILED 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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1-12 are currently amended.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 May 2024 was filed before the mailing date of the first Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “substantially identical” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially identical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how the planar flanges can be substantially identical because it is unclear how different the planar flanges can be while remaining “substantially” identical. Furthermore, Fig. 4 of Applicant’s invention shows one of the planar flanges extending further downwards than the other flange, thus it is unclear how the flanges are substantially identical. Claims 2-12 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGowan (US 20150266454 A1).
In regards to claim 1, McGowan discloses a safety and comfort pulley for a zipline, comprising at least two sheaves (1002), as many shafts (as seen in Fig. 11)) as sheaves and a cage (1004a, 1004b, 1022), the cage comprising a first substantially planar flange (1004a), a second substantially planar flange (1004b), substantially identical to the first flange (as seen in Fig. 11), and substantially superposed parallel to the first flange (as seen in Fig. 11) and a base (1022) connecting the two flanges (as seen in Fig. 1), said at least two shafts being parallel to each other, coplanar and crossing, substantially perpendicularly, the two flanges (as seen in Fig. 1) and said at least two sheaves being rotatably mounted, each around its associated shaft, between the two flanges (para. [0013], lines 1-3), characterized in that it further comprises a first handle (1620, on the left) (Fig. 16A) arranged on the outside of the first flange (as seen in Fig. 16A) and a second handle (1620, on the right) arranged on the outside of the second flange (as seen in Fig. 16A).
In regards to claim 2, McGowan discloses the pulley according to the claim 1, where the two handles extend, in use, substantially parallel to the shafts (as seen in Fig. 16A).
In regards to claim 3, McGowan discloses the pulley according to the claim 1, where the two handles are arranged symmetrically (as seen in Fig. 16A), with respect to a midplane of the two flanges, opposite one another.
In regards to claim 4, McGowan discloses the pulley according to the claim 1, where an axis common to the two handles is parallel to a plane of the shafts (as seen in Fig. 16A).
In regards to claim 5, McGowan discloses the pulley according to the claim 4, where the common axis of the handles is arranged, with respect to a plane of the shafts, on the side opposite to the base (as seen in Fig. 16A, the handle is below the plane of the shafts whereas the base is above the plane of the shafts).
In regards to claim 8, McGowan discloses the pulley according to the claim 1, where the handles are stowable (para. [0064]).
In regards to claim 9, McGowan discloses the pulley according to the claim 8, where stowage is carried out by folding in the direction of the base (para. [0064]).
In regards to claim 10, McGowan discloses the pulley according to the claim 1, where a handle further comprises a return means (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the pivot location of the handles to be stowed enables the handle to be returned to a closed position, thus being return means), tending to stow the handle (para. [0064]).
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) 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGowan (US 20150266454 A1) in view of Strasser (US 9707976 B2).
In regards to claim 6, McGowan teaches the pulley according to the claim 4, comprising two shafts, where the axis of the handles is arranged
McGowan does not teach wherein the axis of the handles is arranged in a midplane of the two shafts.
Strasser teaches handles (as seen in Fig. 2, the handles connect at hole 41) arranged in a midplane of the two shafts (as seen in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handles of McGowan to be shifted in positioning to be arranged in a midplane of the two shafts as taught by Strasser with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of decreasing the overall size of the pulley since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
In regards to claim 12, McGowan teaches the pulley according to the claim 1, where a handle further comprises a shaft (as seen in Fig. 16A)
McGowan does not teach a rotation of the handle about its axis of extension.
Strasser teaches a shaft (as seen in Fig. 16A) enabling a rotation of the handle about its axis of extension (col. 3, lines 12-14, the handle is rotatable around its axis of extension to enable the fastening of the handle via the threading).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handles of McGowan to enable a rotation of the handle about its axis of extension as taught by Strasser with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of the system by allowing the handles to be detached (col. 2, lines 12-16).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGowan (US 20150266454 A1).
In regards to claim 7, McGowan teaches the pulley according to the claim 1, the handles of which
McGowan does not explicitly teach wherein the handles automatically return to a closed position as soon as they are released.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the handles automatically returning to a closed position as soon as they are released with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the safety of the device, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). See MPEP § 2144.04(III).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGowan (US 20150266454 A1) in view of Dose (US 20160193535 A1)
In regards to claim 11, McGowan teaches the pulley according to the claim 1, where a handle is
McGowan does not teach wherein the handle is covered, at least over its face directed towards the base, with a lining made of non-slip material, such as rubber.
Dose teaches a handle covered with a lining made of non-slip material, such as rubber (para. [0014], lines 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handles of McGowan to be covered in a non-slip material such as rubber as taught by Dose with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing safety and comfort of the system 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, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brannan (US 9381926 B2) discloses a rider controlled zip line trolley brake system with a handle.
Lerner (US 8601951 B2) discloses a self-cooling trolley.
Lee (KR 20130130269 A) discloses the wire power transmitting apparatus for a leisure downhill sport.
Sutton (US 5931100 A) discloses a track-supported playground shuttle.
Davis (US 4062293 A) discloses a trolley ride apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights