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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/25/24 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the information data such as application number, filing date, and inventor appears to be incorrect. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 1-18 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.
As to claim 1, line 8, the recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite. The phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It is suggested that “can be” be replaced with --is--.
As to claim 8, line 7, the recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite. The phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It is suggested that “can be” be replaced with --is--.
As to claim 14, line 7, the recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite. The phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It is suggested that “can be” be replaced with --is--.
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.
Insofar as understood, claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanders et al (US 2005/0072965).
As to claim 1, Sanders et al discloses a boat lift winch assembly 20 comprising:
a boat lift winch having a winch shaft 30;
a motor 22 for driving the winch shaft 30;
a sensor indicator 50 operatively connected to the winch shaft 30;
a sensor unit 60 configured to interact with the sensor indicator; and
an electronic control unit 46 configured to receive data from the sensor unit 60
such that the number of revolutions and speed of revolution of the winch
shaft can be determined therefrom and operatively connected to the motor
for controlling the operation thereof.
As to claim 2, Sanders et al discloses wherein the sensor indicator is a
magnet (see para [0022]).
As to claim 3, Sanders et al discloses wherein the sensor unit is a hall
sensor (see para [0022]).
As to claim 14, Sanders et al discloses an attachment for a boat winch assembly 20 comprising:
a winch shaft replacement assembly 30 (as the shaft 30 is capable of being replaced) configured to be securely connected to a boat winch assembly 20, the winch shaft replacement assembly having a sensor indicator 50 operatively connected thereto, the sensor indicator being selected to interact with a sensor unit 60 connected to an electronic control unit 46 such that number of revolutions and speed of revolution of the winch shaft can be determined therefrom, the electronic control unit being operatively connected to a winch motor for controlling the operation thereof.
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) 4-7 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al (US 2005/0072965).
As to claim 4, Sanders et al discloses all that is claimed except for wherein the sensor indicator is a sprocket. Sanders et al (see para [0022]) discloses that other type of known speed or flow sensors may be used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sprocket, since doing so provides the expected benefit of determining speed of a winch shaft.
As to claim 5, Sanders et al discloses all that is claimed except wherein the sensor unit is a proximity sensor. Sanders et al (see para [0022]) discloses that other type of known speed or flow sensors may be used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a proximity sensor, since doing so provides the expected benefit of determining speed of a winch shaft.
As to claim 6, Sanders et al discloses all that is claimed except wherein the sensor indicator is a through hole. Sanders et al (see para [0022]) discloses that other type of known speed or flow sensors may be used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a through hole, since doing so provides the expected benefit of determining speed of a winch shaft.
As to claim 7, Sanders et al discloses all that is claimed except for wherein the sensor unit is a laser sensor. Sanders et al (see para [0022]) discloses that other type of known speed or flow sensors may be used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a laser sensor, since doing so provides the expected benefit of determining speed of a winch shaft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Insofar as understood, as to claim 8, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest the attachment for a boat winch assembly comprising:
a winch shaft adapter assembly configured to be securely connected to a
winch shaft of a boat winch, the winch shaft adapter assembly having a
sensor indicator operatively connected thereto, the sensor indicator being
selected to interact with a sensor unit connected to an electronic control
unit such that number of revolutions and speed of revolution of the winch
shaft can be determined therefrom, the electronic control unit being
operatively connected to a winch motor for controlling the operation
thereof. (emphasis added). The closest prior art, Sanders et al, discloses a winch shaft 30; however, does not show or suggest the winch shaft adapter assembly configured to be securely connected to a winch shaft of a boat winch, the winch shaft adapter assembly having a sensor indicator operatively connected thereto.
Insofar as understood, as to claim 15, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest wherein the winch shaft replacement assembly includes a drive holding washer attached to an end thereof and the sensor indicator is located on the drive holding washer. The closest prior art, Sanders et al fails to show or suggest such limitation.
Insofar as understood, as to claim 16, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest wherein the winch shaft replacement assembly includes a sprocket attached to an end thereof. The closest prior art, Sanders et al fails to show or suggest such limitation.
Insofar as understood, as to claim 17, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest wherein the winch shaft replacement assembly includes a sprocket attached to a medial portion thereof. The closest prior art, Sanders et al fails to show or suggest such limitation.
Insofar as understood, as to claim 18, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest wherein the winch shaft replacement assembly includes a drive washer located on a medial portion thereof and the sensor indicator is located on the drive washer. The closest prior art, Sanders et al fails to show or suggest such limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK L LAGMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7043. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8am-6:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/FREDERICK L LAGMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678