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 .
Drawings
PCT Rule 11.2 states:
(a) “All elements of the international application (i.e., the request, the description, the claims, the drawings, and the abstract) shall be so presented as to admit of direct reproduction by photography, electrostatic processes, photo offset, and microfilming, in any number of copies.”
PCT Rule 11.13 states:
(a) Drawings shall be executed in durable, black, sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well-defined, lines and strokes without colorings;
(e) All numbers, letters and reference lines, appearing on the drawings, shall be simple and clear. Brackets, circles or inverted commas shall not be used in association with numbers and letters;
The drawings are objected to because figures 1-4 and 6 are too grainy to see clearly, and far to poorly rendered for photocopy or reproduction. Numbers and letters in circles cannot be read properly (especially fig. 6). Applicant should resubmit all the figures as black and white line drawings with sufficient clarity to render the invention understandable to a reader. 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 8-11 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claims are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
For example, the claims contain multiple period punctuation marks, making it unclear where the claims begin and end. No antecedent basis appears present for any of the claimed elements. Reference numerals are used instead of an explanation of what elements are claimed. Claim 11 is an omnibus style claim. Etc. etc. etc.
It is noted that the claims are so incomprehensible that a proper comparison between the prior art and the claims is impossible. In an effort to advance compact prosecution, the Office gives the following art rejections.
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.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,715,958 A (hereinafter “Feider”) in view of US 3,764,032 A (hereinafter “Ward”).
Regarding claim 8 Feider discloses a system where wire No. A1 (80) tightens side O (right side in fig. 8) with the Tensioner No. C1 (92) with the effect of pushing the weight of the container (see par. starting col. 1 l. 11) inward to the middle at the round disk No. B1 (88). Feider fails to teach the disk is metal. Ward teaches a hoisting mechanism with wires and tensioners attached to a load engager. Ward further teaches the wires being attached to a metal element (82; see col. 5 lines 16-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the disk of Feider out of metal, as taught by Ward, 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 a strong element which can stand up to repeated use.
Regarding claim 9 modified Feider teaches the above system, and further teaches wire No. A5 (84) tightens side F (left side in fig. 8) with the Tensioner No. C5 (96) with the effect of pushing the weight of the container (see par. starting col. 1 l. 11) inward to the middle at the round metal (as per Ward) disk No. B5 (see pulley in bottom left of fig. 8).
Regarding claim 10 modified Feider teaches the above system, and further teaches where the vertical tensile forces (i.e. tension in ropes) according to claim No. 2 are integrated with the horizontal tensile forces to completely stabilize the container and prevent it from swinging horizontally and vertically (see abstract).
Regarding claim 11 modified Feider teaches the above system, and further teaches a system according to claim 1 as described in this statement, with reference to the attached formal drawing (i.e. Feider fig. 8 looks similar to Applicant’s figures).
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.
US 3,789,998 A (to “Fathauer) teaches wire tensioners (91) mounted on a load lifting device (see fig. 5); disks (e.g. 81/82) of unknown material aid in attaching wire to the load lifting device.
US 7,150,366 B1 (to “Zakula”) teaches anti-sway tensioners (34a/b) mounted on a lifting device (20), and used to dampen sway by selectively tensioning flexible members (22A/B).
US 3,887,081 A (to “Gill”) teaches a mechanical linkage with disks (33/35/45/47) of unknown material used to reposition a load under the force of a tensioner (55).
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