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 .
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 term “housing” is not used in the written description.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “elongated member…configured to connect…” and “a clasping device” in (e.g.) claim 1; and “grabbing mechanism” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7,878,484 (hereinafter “Kitchens”).
Regarding claim 1 Kitchens discloses a load transfer device for (i.e. capable of use with) appurtenances to be installed on a vertical infrastructure installation comprising:
a. An elongated member (132) having a first (bottom) end and a second (top) end, wherein said second end of said elongated member (132) is configured to connect (capable of connecting; i.e. this is a functional recitation) to said vertical infrastructure installation,
b. A head (134) attached to said first (top) end of said elongated member (132), wherein said head (134) comprises a housing and a first pulley wheel (col. 2 lines 32-34),
c. A pulley rope (142) in communication with said head (134), wherein said pulley rope (142) is fixed (i.e. at least indirectly via 136) to said head (134) on at least one end of said pulley rope (142),
d. a second pulley wheel (145) in communication with said pulley rope (142) wherein said second pulley wheel (145) is not directly connected to said head (134), wherein said second pulley wheel (145) further comprises a clasping device (144).
Regarding claim 2 Kitchens discloses the above device, and further discloses wherein said elongated member (132) further comprises a collar (136) between said first (top) end and said second (bottom) end.
Regarding claim 3 Kitchens discloses the above device, and further discloses a handle (137; i.e. the eye could be held) attached (at least indirectly) to said collar (136).
Regarding claim 4 Kitchens discloses the above device, and further discloses wherein said clasping device (144) is a slip hook.
Regarding claim 5 Kitchens discloses the above device, and further discloses wherein said vertical infrastructure installation is a tower (i.e. 130 could be considered a tower).
Regarding claim 6 Kitchens discloses the above device, and further discloses wherein said vertical infrastructure installation is a mast (i.e. 130 could be considered a tower).
Regarding claim 7 Kitchens discloses the above device, and further discloses wherein said second (bottom) end of said elongated member (132) is sized such as to removably interface with an antenna pipe attached to said vertical infrastructure installation (i.e. it is argued that Kitchens 132 could fit in an antenna pipe of the dimensions similar to element 130).
Regarding claim 8 Kitchens discloses the above device, and further discloses a rope retention device (136) attached to said head (134), wherein said rope retention device (136) is in communication with (attached to- see fig. 1A) said pulley rope (142).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitchens in view of US 7,658,264 B2 (hereinafter “Mauthner”).
Regarding claim 9 Kitchens discloses the above device, but fails to teach the particulars of claim 9. Mauthner teaches a lifting system with a housing containing a pulley. Mauthner further teaches wherein a rope retention device comprises a rope grabbing mechanism (28) and a pressure block (30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the grabbing mechanism of Mauthner to the load transfer device of Kitchens with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to stop unwanted backwards slippage of the rope if overloaded (see Mauthner column 4 lines 31-41).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitchens in view of US 4,560,029 (hereinafter “Dalmaso”).
Regarding claims 9-10 Kitchens discloses the above device (see claim 1, above), but fails to teach the particulars of claims 9-10. Dalmaso teaches a lifting system. Dalmaso further teaches wherein a rope retention device (24) comprises a rope grabbing mechanism (78/80) and a pressure block (36) wherein said rope retention device (24) further comprises a pull wire (20) configured to release said rope grabbing mechanism (78/80) when pulled. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the rope retention device of Dalmaso to the system of Kitchens in order to prevent unwanted free-spooling of the hoist.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to anticipate or make obvious the entire combination of claim recitations set forth in either of claims 11 or 16.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record fails to teach the combination of the load transfer device and pulley rope, as claimed, in conjunction with (b) Raising said appurtenance using a load line connected to said vertical infrastructure installation, (d) Shifting the weight of said appurtenance from said load line to said load transfer device, and (e) Disconnecting said load line from said appurtenance.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record fails to teach the combination of the load transfer device and pulley rope, as claimed, in conjunction with (d) Connecting said appurtenance to a load line, (e) Shifting the weight of said appurtenance from said load transfer device to said load line, (g) Lowering said appurtenance to the ground via said load line.
It does not appear obvious to modify the primary reference (US 7,878,484 to Kitchens) to attain such a set of method steps. Kitchens is used in a trailering setting on the rear of a vehicle. It does not seem likely that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a second rope/line and second lifting step to the trailer hoist of Kitchens.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such references show various forms of apparatus which comprise at least one similar feature to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time.
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.
/NATHANIEL L ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654