DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I (to figures 2-4) in the reply filed on May 12, 2026 (see ELC. of 05/12/2026) is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 3, 7-10, 12-13, and 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II-V, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 12, 2026.
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 following claimed limitations (see below) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The claimed limitations not shown are:
“a cylindrical internal space” (see claim 6 line 2)
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 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 1-2, 4-6, 11 and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, this claim claims “A rope inspection device attached to a work machine that has a machine body, a rising/lowering body capable of rising/lowering relative to the machine body, a winch, and a rope which is led out from the winch and suspended from a tip end of the rising/lowering body and which is connected to a load to be suspended”. See lines 1-5.
This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear as to whether or not the work machine is being claimed as a part of the rope inspection device. The use of the phrase “attached to a work machine” appears to imply that the work machine is being claimed as a part of the rope inspection device. Is the work machine being claimed as a part of the rope inspection device? Applicant may want to consider changing “attached” to -attachable-.
Further regarding claim 1, this claim claims “a support unit which is attached to the tip end of the rising/lowering body and which supports the rope inspection instrument such that the rope inspection instrument can follow movement in a horizontal direction of the rope which is suspended from the tip end”. See lines 8-10.
This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear as to whether or not the rising/lowering body is being claimed as a part of the rope inspection device. The use of the phrase “attached to the tip end of the rising/lowering body” appears to imply that the rising/lowering body is being claimed as a part of the rope inspection device. Is the rising/lowering body being claimed as a part of the rope inspection device? Applicant may want to consider changing “attached” to -attachable-.
The Examiner points out that later claim 11 appears to further claim the work machine and the rising/lowering body.
Regarding claim 2, this claim claims “a pair of left and right support cables suspended from the tip end of the rising/lowering body”. See lines 3-4.
This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear as to whether or not the rising/lowering body is being claimed as a part of the rope inspection device. The use of the phrase “suspended from the tip end of the rising/lowering body” appears to imply that the rising/lowering body is being claimed as a part of the rope inspection device. Is the rising/lowering body being claimed as a part of the rope inspection device? Applicant may want to consider changing “suspended” to -suspendable-.
Regarding claim 4, this claim claims “the rising/lowering body includes an overwound limit switch attached to the tip end and a detection cable led out from the overwound limit switch”. See lines 3-4.
This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear as to whether or not the rising/lowering body is being claimed as a part of the rope inspection device. The use of the phrase “attached to the tip end” appears to imply that the rising/lowering body is being claimed as a part of the rope inspection device. Is the rising/lowering body being claimed as a part of the rope inspection device? Applicant may want to consider changing “attached” to -attachable-.
Regarding claims 5-6, 11, and 14, these claims are rejected because of their dependency to their respective base claim (as claims 5-6 depend on claim 2, as claim 11 depends on claim 1, and as claim 14 depends on claim 4).
Please review all claims (including the withdrawn claims) before the formal response is submitted, as any new 112(b) rejections introduced in the response may be grounds for a Final Rejection.
For example, withdrawn claims 3 and 12 appear to imply that at least one part of the work machine is being claimed as a part of the rope inspection device.
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 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 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mupende et al. (US Publication 2016/0221800 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mupende et al. (from here on just referred to as Mupende) discloses a device for detecting the replacement state of wear of a high-strength fiber rope during use in lifting gear (see figures 1-4) comprising:
A rope inspection device (4, 4a, 4b, 3, 15, and 31, see figures 1-4, especially figure 3) attached to a work machine (20, see figures 1-2) that has a machine body (21, see figures 1-2), a rising/lowering body (23, see figures 1-2) capable of rising/lowering relative to the machine body, a winch (30, see figures 1-2), and a rope (1, see figures 1-2) which is led out from the winch and suspended from a tip end of the rising/lowering body and which is connected to a load to be suspended (see figures 1-2), the rope inspection device comprising:
a rope inspection instrument (3, 15, and 31, see figures 1-4, especially figure 3) capable of inspecting a deterioration state of the rope (see paragraphs 0031 and 0048-0049); and
a support unit (4, 4a, and 4b, see figures 1-4, especially figure 3) which is attached to the tip end of the rising/lowering body (see figures 1-2) and which supports the rope inspection instrument (see figures 1-4) such that the rope inspection instrument can follow movement in a horizontal direction of the rope which is suspended from the tip end (see figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 11, Mupende further shows:
A work machine (20, see figures 1-2) comprising:
a machine body (21, see figures 1-2);
a rising/lowering body (23, see figures 1-2) capable of rising/lowering relative to the machine body;
a winch (30, see figures 1-2);
a rope (1, see figures 1-2) which is led out from the winch and suspended from a tip end of the
rising/lowering body and which is connected to a load to be suspended (see figures 1-2); and
the rope inspection device according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above) to be attached to the tip end of the rising/lowering body (see figures 1-4).
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korenaga (JPH 07137985 A) in view of Mupende et al. (US Publication 2016/0221800 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Korenaga discloses a wire rope inspection method for rope suspended crane (see figures 1-4, especially figures 1-2) comprising:
A rope inspection device (see below, and see figures 1-4, especially figure 1), the rope inspection device comprising:
a rope inspection instrument (1 and 2, see figure 1) capable of inspecting a deterioration state of the rope (see paragraphs 0005-0006 and 0009-0010, see attached machine translation); and
a support unit (3, 4, the chains suspending the system as discussed in paragraph 0011 of the machine translation and shown in the annotated figure below, and the fasteners connecting the two parts of bracket 4 together, as shown in figure 1) and which supports the rope inspection instrument (see annotated figure below) such that the rope inspection instrument can follow movement in a horizontal direction of the rope which is suspended from the tip end (see figures 1-4, and the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Korenaga does not explicitly disclose the support unit which is attached to a tip end of the rising/lowering body.
Mupende et al. (from here on just referred to as Mupende) discloses a device for detecting the replacement state of wear of a high-strength fiber rope during use in lifting gear (see figures 1-4) comprising:
a rope inspection instrument (3, 15, and 31, see figures 1-4, especially figure 3) capable of inspecting a deterioration state of the rope (see paragraphs 0031 and 0048-0049); and teaches
a support unit (4, 4a, and 4b, see figures 1-4, especially figure 3) which is attached to the tip end of the rising/lowering body (see figures 1-2) and which supports the rope inspection instrument (see figures 1-4) such that the rope inspection instrument can follow movement in a horizontal direction of the rope which is suspended from the tip end (see figures 1-4).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rope inspection device of Korenaga by attaching the rope inspection device of Korenaga to a tip end of a rising/lowering body as taught by Mupende, to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Korenaga further shows wherein the support unit includes:
a pair of left and right support cables (considered the chains suspending the system as discussed in paragraph 0011 of the machine translation and shown in the annotated figure above) suspended from the tip end of the rising/lowering body, and
a support mechanism (4, see figure 1) connected to tip ends of the pair of support cables (see annotated figure above) and supporting the rope inspection instrument (see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 5, Korenaga further shows wherein:
the support mechanism includes
a support frame (4, see figure 1) connected to the tip ends of the pair of support cables (see figure 1 and see annotated figure above), and a support body (considered the fasteners connecting the two parts of bracket 4 together, as shown in figure 1, and see annotated figure below) fixed to a center of the support frame and supporting the rope inspection instrument.
PNG
media_image2.png
270
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Korenaga further shows wherein the rope inspection instrument has a cylindrical internal space (see annotated figure above) that receives, along an up-down direction, the rope suspended from the tip end of the rising/lowering body (see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 11, Korenaga does not explicitly disclose:
A work machine comprising:
a machine body;
a rising/lowering body capable of rising/lowering relative to the machine body;
a winch;
a rope which is led out from the winch and suspended from a tip end of the
rising/lowering body and which is connected to a load to be suspended; and
the rope inspection device according to any claim 1 to be
attached to the tip end of the rising/lowering body.
Mupende teaches:
A work machine (20, see figures 1-2) comprising:
a machine body (21, see figures 1-2);
a rising/lowering body (23, see figures 1-2) capable of rising/lowering relative to the machine body;
a winch (30, see figures 1-2);
a rope (1, see figures 1-2) which is led out from the winch and suspended from a tip end of the
rising/lowering body and which is connected to a load to be suspended (see figures 1-2); and teaches
the rope inspection device according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above) to be attached to the tip end of the rising/lowering body (see figures 1-4).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rope inspection device of Korenaga by attaching the rope inspection device of Korenaga to a tip end of a rising/lowering body of a work machine (the work machine including: a rising/lowering body, a machine body, a winch, and a rope which is led out from the winch) as taught by Mupende, to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korenaga (JPH 07137985 A) in view of Mupende et al. (US Publication 2016/0221800 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, and 11 above, and further in view of Ida (JP 2000/143169 A).
Regarding claim 4, Neither Korenaga nor Mupende disclose wherein the rising/lowering body includes an overwound limit switch attached to the tip end and a detection cable led out from the overwound limit switch, and the support mechanism further includes a detection cable connection part connected to a tip end of the detection cable.
Ida discloses a hoist rope overwind prevention device for crane (see figures 4-6) and teaches of providing a raising/lowering body (8, see figures 4-5) with an overwinding prevention device (25, 27, 22, 21, and 18, see figure 5) attached to a tip end (see figures 4-5) and a detection cable (21 and 22, see figures 4-5) led out from the overwound limit switch (25 and 27, see figures 4-5), to prevent an overwinding accident (see paragraphs 0002-0006, especially paragraphs 0004-0005 of the attached machine translation). Ida further discloses the detection cables are connected to left and right sides of a weight (18, see figures 4-5).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rope inspection device of Korenaga as modified by Mupende by additionally providing a rope overwind prevention device as taught by Ida to the rope inspection device of Korenaga as modified by Mupende, to prevent an overwinding accident as taught by Ida, to prevent damage to the tip end of the rising/lowering body of Korenaga as modified Mupende if the rope is overwound during operation, and/or to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Korenaga, Mupende, and Ida appear to differ from second limitation of this claim because the detection rope of Ida is arranged on a weight and not on the support mechanism of a rope inspection device.
Further, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rope inspection device of Korenaga as modified by Mupende and Ida by rearranging the connection the tip ends of the detection cables to the rope inspection device instead of the weight of Ida, to reduce the number of parts (as using the rope inspection device as the weight would allow elimination of the weight of Ida) of the combined device of Korenaga as modified by Mupende and Ida, to allow for easier maintenance of the combinate device of Korenaga as modified by Mupende and Ida (as the support cables and the detection cables are all located on the rope inspection device), to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result, and/or as the shifting the connection of the detection cables from the weight to the rope inspection device would not have modified the operation of the overwind prevention device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950))
With the modification above, the support mechanism further includes a detection cable connection part (considered a part of the support unit connected to the detection cables) connected to a tip end of the detection cable.
Regarding claim 14, Korenaga further shows wherein:
the support mechanism includes
a support frame (4, see figure 1) connected to the tip ends of the pair of support cables (see figure 1 and see the annotated figure above in the rejection of claim 1), and a support body (considered the fasteners connecting the two parts of bracket 4 together, as shown in figure 1, and see annotated figure below) fixed to a center of the support frame and supporting the rope inspection instrument.
PNG
media_image2.png
270
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN J CAMPOS, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5229. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Robert W. Hodge can be reached on phone number (571)272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJC/
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights