Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 143. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: PoD, 21, 145, and 14S_B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: it appears there is a typographical error and the second instance of “according to” in line 1 should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: it appears there is a typographical error and “according claim 1” should read “according to claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The subject matter of claim 14 is not found in the Specification.
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 4, 6, 7, and 10-15 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 4 recites the limitation "the center of mass" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the yoke wire guide" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the terminal end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations “a spring module” and “a plurality of constant torque springs” are vague and indefinite. It is unclear if applicant intends to refer to the same spring module and torque springs as claimed in claim 1, or a different spring module and torque springs. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will treat the limitations as referring to the spring module and torque springs of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “essentially T-shaped” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether applicant intends to claim a T-shaped structure or not. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will treat the phrase “essentially T-shaped” to mean “substantially T-shaped”.
Claim 11 is rejected because it depends from rejected claim 10.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the method" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-15 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the weight of the yoke" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the geometry of the load" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-4, 6-8, and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Josipovic, Foreign Patent Document, ITMI20112192A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Josipovic discloses a lifting rigging (1, Fig. 5) comprising: a yoke (2, Fig. 5)configured for connection between a load and a suspension point (2 between load 9a and suspension point 3, Fig. 6); and a weight-bearing assembly mounted on the yoke (2, 4, 6, 7, Fig. 5, 6), which weight-bearing assembly comprises: a spring module (14, 15, Fig. 5) comprising a number of constant torque springs (15, Fig. 5), and a yoke wire (4, Fig. 5) with a first end configured for connection to the suspension point (first end of 4 connects to suspension point 3, Fig. 6) and a second end connected to the spring module (second end of 4 connected to 2, 14, 15, Fig. 5) and configured to wind the constant torque springs when the yoke wire is subject to a pulling force (a recitation as to intended use of a structure carries little patentable weight. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. In this case, the structure of Josipovic is identical to applicant's claimed structure, it is therefore capable of performing the intended use), and wherein the weight-bearing assembly is configured such that the yoke wire bears the weight of the yoke when the lifting rigging is suspended from the suspension point (4 bears weight of yoke when suspended, Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 2, Josipovic discloses the limitations of claim 1, and a plurality of hook lines for connecting the yoke to the suspension point (4, 5a, 5b, 6 connect the yoke 2a, 2b to suspension point 3, Fig. 7) and a plurality of load lines for connecting the yoke to the load (24 connecting 2a, 2b to load 9a, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, Josipovic discloses the limitations of claim 1, and a yoke wire guide (7, Fig. 5) configured to horizontally constrain the yoke wire between the spring module and a point of departure from the yoke (7 constrains 6, Fig. 6, 7).
Regarding claim 4, Josipovic discloses the limitations of claim 3, and wherein the point of departure is aligned with the center of mass of the yoke (points of departure of 4 are aligned with center of mass of yoke 2, Fig. 5, 7 because they are arranged symmetrically about yoke, and yoke is symmetric itself; Paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 6, Josipovic discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the terminal end of a constant torque spring is wound on a rotatable output drum (16, Fig. 5) arranged in the spring module (16 arranged in 14, 15, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Josipovic discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein a spring module comprises a plurality of constant torque springs (14, 15, about axis 11, Fig. 5, 7).
Regarding claim 8, Josipovic discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the weight-bearing assembly comprises a pair of spring modules arranged symmetrically about the yoke (11, 14, 15, arranged symmetrically about yoke (2, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Josipovic discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the yoke is essentially T-shaped (2 is T-shaped, Fig. 5)and comprises a main beam (2b, Fig. 5) and an extension beam connected to the main beam (2a, Fig. 5), and wherein the weight-bearing assembly is mounted to the extension beam (14, 15, 16, mounted on 2a, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Josipovic discloses the limitations of claim 10, and wherein the extension beam of the yoke is detachable from the main beam (2a, 2b are separate and thus detachable components, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Josipovic discloses the limitations of claim 1, and a method of lifting a load using the lifting rigging, which method comprises: providing a crane ("industrial manipulators" Paragraph [0020]); connecting the first end of the yoke wire of the weight-bearing assembly to a suspension point of the crane (end of 4 to suspension point 3, Fig. 5); connecting hook lines between the yoke and the suspension point (5a, 5b connected to yoke at 6, 7, and suspension point 3, Fig. 7); connecting load lines between the yoke and the load (24 connected between load 9a and yoke 2, Fig. 7); operating the crane to raise the suspension point, thereby exerting a pulling force on the yoke wire until the weight of the yoke is carried by the yoke wire (Paragraph [0011], Fig. 7); and subsequently operating the crane to raise the suspension point further in order to lift the load off the ground (Paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 13, Josipovic discloses the limitations of claim 12, and a prior step of calibrating the weight-bearing assembly to the weight of the yoke (Paragraph [0027], [0029]).
Regarding claim 14, Josipovic discloses the limitations of claim 12, and a prior step of assembling the lifting rigging according to the geometry of the load (Paragraph [0050], Fig. 6, 7).
Regarding claim 15, Josipovic discloses the limitations of claim 12, and wherein the crane is a column-mounted slewing crane ("industrial manipulators and similar", Paragraph [0050]).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josipovic, Foreign Patent Document, ITMI20112192A1 in view of Dewey et al., US5297832.
Regarding claim 5, Josipovic discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the yoke wire guide is hinged (6, hinges about 7, Fig. 5).
Josipovic does not disclose the guide is a hinged sheave.
Dewey et al. teaches a lifting rigging, wherein the guide is a hinged sheave (26, 30, Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the connection of elements 6 and 7 of Josipovic to utilize a hinged sheave as taught by Dewey et al. because it is one of a finite number of solutions (sheave, clip, rotatable connection, fixed connection, etc.) with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to minimize wear on the wire at the connection point between the wire and the yoke.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, Josipovic, a close prior art fails to teach, suggest, or render obvious wherein the weight-bearing assembly further comprises a gear assembly configured to convert a rotation of the spool into a rotation of the output drum of a spring module. It would not have been obvious to add such a gear mechanism to the Josipovic structure as such an addition would complicate assembly, manufacturing, and operation of the yoke and lifting rigging.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm 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 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.
/K.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights