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 .
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 10-19 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 10 line 4 recites “the second loop,” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 10 line 5 recites “a second loop,” which has unclear antecedent basis. Does this refer to the previously set forth second loop, or another second loop?
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 1-6, 10-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112645208 A (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 1 Li discloses a tow rope, comprising:
a rope body (1) having a first end (E1; see annotated figure below) and a second end (E2), the first end (E1) of the rope body (1) comprising a first loop (L1); and
a first diamond knot coupled to the rope body (1), a coupling position of the first diamond knot (K1) and the rope body (1) being adjacent (at) to the first loop (L1),
wherein the first diamond knot (K1) and the first loop (L1) are fastenable to form a first eye (Y1), and the first diamond knot (K1) is detachable from the first loop (L1).
PNG
media_image1.png
346
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li, Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2 Li discloses the above rope, and further discloses wherein the first loop (L1) is formed by splicing the first end (E1) of the rope body (1). (I.e. this is a product-by-process limitation, and of Li is structurally the same; see MPEP 2113 (I))
Regarding claim 3 Li discloses the above rope, and further discloses a first coupling rope body (CB1, see annotated figure below) having a first free end and a first coupling end, wherein the first coupling end is coupled to the rope body (1), and wherein the first diamond knot (K1) is arranged at the first free end (see fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
346
875
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4 Li discloses the above rope, and further discloses wherein the first coupling end is spliced to the rope body (1). (I.e. this is a product-by-process limitation, and of Li is structurally the same; see MPEP 2113 (I))
Regarding claim 5 Li discloses the above rope, and further discloses wherein the first diamond knot (K1) is integrally formed with the first coupling rope body (CB1).
Regarding claim 6 Li discloses the above rope, and further discloses wherein a length of the first coupling rope body (CB1, see annotated fig. above) is less than a length of a rope body segment (RBS) between the first coupling end and the first loop (L1).
Regarding claim 10 Li discloses the above rope, and further discloses a second diamond knot (K2) coupled to the rope body (1), a coupling position of the second diamond knot (K2) and the rope body (1) being adjacent to [a] second loop (L2), wherein the second end (E2) of the rope body (1) is provided with a second loop (L2), wherein the second diamond knot (K2) and the second loop (L2) are fastenable to form a second eye, and the second diamond knot (K2) is detachable from the second loop (L2).
PNG
media_image3.png
353
543
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11 Li discloses the above rope, and further discloses wherein the second loop (L2) is formed by splicing the second end (E2) of the rope body (1). (I.e. this is a product-by-process limitation, and of Li is structurally the same; see MPEP 2113 (I))
Regarding claim 12 Li discloses the above rope, and further discloses a second coupling rope body (CB2) having a second free end and a second coupling end, wherein the second coupling end is coupled to the rope body (1), and wherein the second diamond knot (K2) is arranged at the second free end. (See fig. 1.)
Regarding claim 13 Li discloses the above rope, and further discloses wherein the second coupling end is spliced to the rope body (1). (I.e. this is a product-by-process limitation, and of Li is structurally the same; see MPEP 2113 (I))
Regarding claim 14 Li discloses the above rope, and further discloses wherein the second diamond knot (K2) is integrally formed with the second coupling rope body (CB2).
Regarding claim 15 Li discloses the above rope, and further discloses wherein a length of the second coupling rope body (CB2) is less than a length of a rope body segment (RBS) between the second coupling end and the second loop (L2).
Regarding claim 19 Li discloses the above rope, and further discloses wherein the tow rope is centrally symmetrical (i.e. the portions to either side of element 3 are substantially symmetrical).
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0024630 A1 (hereinafter “Ryan”).
Regarding claims 1 and 20 Ryan discloses a winch, comprising:
a reel (30); and
a tow rope (fig. 12), comprising:
a rope body (200) having a first (left) end and a second end (i.e. end at the winch), the first (left) end of the rope body (200) being provided with a first loop (210); and
a first diamond knot (226) coupled (via splicing) to the rope body (200), a coupling position of the first diamond knot (226) and the rope body (200) being adjacent (near) to the first loop (210),
wherein the first diamond knot (226) and the first loop (210) are fastenable to form a first eye (250), and the first diamond knot (226) is detachable from the first loop (210), and
wherein the tow rope (fig. 12) is wound around the reel (30).
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.
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of WO 2015013790 A1 (hereinafter “Bueno”).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 16-17 Li teaches the above tow rope, and further teaches a sleeve (101) which is used for protecting the tow rope, and junctions of rope exist where the coupling rope bodies (CB1/CB2) respectively intersect the rope body (1). It is not clear if Li teaches the remaining limitations of claims 7 and 16; Li does not teach a fastening sleeve made of a binding wire.
Bueno teaches a rope with a reinforced eye (19). Bueno further teaches sleeving a spliced portion (see 12) with a wrapping wire (30) in order to provide reinforcement. 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 sleeving of Bueno to the junctures of Li with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to reinforce the junction points of Li.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of CH 597010 A5 (hereinafter “Masson”).
Regarding claims 9 and 18 Li teaches the above tow rope, and further teaches a first limiting sleeve (2011 and unnumbered corresponding element at the opposite end) movable (capable of being moved; i.e. this is a functional recitation) along a length direction of the rope body to change the size of the respective loops (L1, L2). Li fails to teach the limiting sleeve being sleeved on a root of the respective loop. Masson teaches a similar tow rope with a loop (see figure) which accepts a diamond knot (c), and closes via a limiting sleeve (d). Masson further teaches wherein the limiting sleeve (d) is sleeved at the root of the loop (see figure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the limiting sleeve of Masson, in place of the limiting sleeve of Li, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to have better control of the loop size and avoid rope-on-rope abrasion.
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