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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,717,708 B2 (hereinafter ‘708) in view of Rimpel (DE102006050995A1).
Regarding claim 1, claims 1, 17, and 20 of patent ‘708 recites an abseiling device, comprising: a guide arrangement (“guiding arrangement” claims 1 and 20 of patent ‘708) (“guide roller” claim 17 of patent ‘708) that is configured to be rotated in two directions (“bidirectionally rotatable” claims 1, 17, and 20 of patent ‘708) for guidance of a traction means (“pulling means” claims 1 and 20 of patent ‘708) (“rope” claim 17 of patent ‘708), a braking device coupled to the guide arrangement, wherein a drive means (“drive apparatus” claims 1 and 20 of patent ‘708) (“input shaft coupling an external motorized drive apparatus” claim 17 of patent ‘708) is connectable to the guide arrangement for actuating the guide arrangement, and a (“mechanical” claims 1, 17, and 20 of patent ‘708) torque limiter decouples the drive means and the guide arrangement when a threshold value of a torque is exceeded, but lacks a torque limiter with a first coupling body and a second coupling body, wherein the first coupling body is configured to be displaced in translation relative to the second coupling body between a coupling position and a decoupling position. Rimpel teaches a similar torque limiter and further teaches a torque limiter with a first coupling body (1; Figure 1) and a second coupling body (2), wherein the first coupling body (1) is configured to be displaced in translation relative to the second coupling body (2) between a coupling position and a decoupling position (page 4, ¶6). It would have been obvious to modify claim 1 of patent ‘708 with the torque limiter as taught by Rimpel in order to reduce spacing of the coupling arrangement, improve the accuracy and speed of decoupling, and prevent jamming of split coupling components to prevent overloading of the drive motor and/or abseiling components.
Regarding claims 2-8, patent ‘708 recites the above abseiling device, but lacks
(claim 2) wherein the torque limiter comprises a pretensioning device with at least one pretensioning means, which pretensions the first coupling body in a direction of the second coupling body into the coupling position;
(claim 3) wherein the pretensioning device is adjustable, so that the threshold value of the torque above which decoupling of the first coupling body and the second coupling body takes place by translational displacement is determined;
(claim 4) wherein the at least one pretensioning means is designed as a spring element;
(claim 5) wherein the at least one pretensioning means is arranged or clamped between an adjusting element designed as an adjusting nut and the first coupling body;
(claim 6) wherein the adjusting element has a radially inwardly directed abutment against which the at least one pretensioning means is axially supported;
(claim 7) wherein the adjusting element has an internal thread which meshes with an external thread provided on the second coupling body;
(claim 8) wherein the at least one pretensioning means is supported axially on a first ball bearing, which is arranged on the first coupling body on an end face facing away from a first detent elements, so that the first coupling body is configured to rotate relative to the at least one pretensioning means.
Rimpel teaches a similar torque limiter and further teaches
(claim 2) wherein the torque limiter comprises a pretensioning device (3, 6; Figure 1) with at least one pretensioning means (6), which pretensions the first coupling body (1) in a direction of the second coupling body (2) into the coupling position;
(claim 3) wherein the pretensioning device (3, 6) is adjustable, so that the threshold value of the torque above which decoupling of the first coupling body (1) and the second coupling body (2) takes place by translational displacement is determined (page 6, ¶1);
(claim 4) wherein the at least one pretensioning means (6) is designed as a spring element (page 4, ¶3-6);
(claim 5) wherein the at least one pretensioning means (6; Figure 1) is arranged or clamped between an adjusting element (3) designed as an adjusting nut and the first coupling body (1);
(claim 6) wherein the adjusting element (3) has a radially inwardly directed abutment (31) against which the at least one pretensioning means (6) is axially supported;
(claim 7) wherein the adjusting element (3) has an internal thread which meshes with an external thread provided on the second coupling body (2; page 6, ¶14);
(claim 8) wherein the at least one pretensioning means is supported axially on a first ball bearing (4; Figure 1), which is arranged on the first coupling body (1) on an end face facing away from a first detent elements (right side locking balls 5), so that the first coupling body (1) is configured to rotate relative to the at least one pretensioning means (6).
It would have been obvious to modify patent ‘708 to include the torque limiter and pretensioning device as taught by Rimpel in order to improve the accuracy and speed of decoupling to prevent overloading of the drive motor and/or abseiling components.
Regarding claims 10-16, patent ‘708 recites the above abseiling device, but lacks
(claim 10) wherein first detent elements are arranged on the first coupling body and second detent elements are arranged on the second coupling body, and wherein in a coupling position, the first detent elements and the second detent elements engage with one another in a form-fitting and frictionally engaged manner;
(claim 11) wherein the first detent elements and the second detent elements are designed as detent balls;
(claim 12) wherein the first detent elements and the second detent elements are frictionally engaged with one another in the decoupling position of the first coupling body and the second coupling body;
(claim 13) wherein the first coupling body has first recesses for receiving the first detent elements and the second coupling body has second recesses for receiving the second detent elements;
(claim 14) wherein the first detent elements protrude from the first recesses and the second detent elements protrude from the second recesses, such that the first detent elements engage with the second detent elements;
(claim 15) wherein the first detent elements are arranged concentrically on a first end face of the first coupling body facing the second coupling body and the second detent elements are arranged concentrically about an axis of rotation on a second end face of the second coupling body facing the first coupling body;
(claim 16) wherein each of the first detent elements and the second detent elements are each arranged equidistant from one another.
Rimpel teaches a similar torque limiter and further teaches
(claim 10) wherein first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) are arranged on the first coupling body (1) and second detent elements (left side locking balls 5) are arranged on the second coupling body (2), and wherein in a coupling position, the first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) and the second detent elements (left side locking balls 5) engage with one another in a form-fitting and frictionally engaged manner (Figures 3 and 5).
(claim 11) wherein the first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) and the second detent elements (left side locking balls 5) are designed as detent balls;
(claim 12) wherein the first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) and the second detent elements (left side locking balls 5) are frictionally engaged with one another in the decoupling position of the first coupling body (1) and the second coupling body (2; Figure 4);
(claim 13) wherein the first coupling body (1) has first recesses (15; Figure 1) for receiving the first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) and the second coupling body (2) has second recesses (25) for receiving the second detent elements (left side locking balls 5);
(claim 14) wherein the first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) protrude from the first recesses (15) and the second detent elements (left side locking balls 5) protrude from the second recesses (25), such that the first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) engage with the second detent elements (left side locking balls 5);
(claim 15) wherein the first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) are arranged concentrically on a first end face (end face of body 1 where recesses 15 are provided; Figure 1) of the first coupling body (1) facing the second coupling body (2) and the second detent elements (left side locking balls 5) are arranged concentrically about an axis of rotation on a second end face (end face of body 2 where recesses 25 are provided) of the second coupling body (2) facing the first coupling body (1);
(claim 16) wherein each of the first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) and the second detent elements (left side locking balls 5) are each arranged equidistant from one another (Figures 6-8).
It would have been obvious to modify patent ‘708 to include the torque limiter as taught by Rimpel in order to reduce spacing of the coupling arrangement, improve the accuracy and speed of decoupling/coupling, and prevent jamming of split coupling components to prevent overloading of the drive motor and/or abseiling components.
Regarding claims 18-20, patent ‘708 recites the above abseiling device, but lacks
(claim 18) wherein the first coupling body is axially displaceable relative to the second coupling body;
(claim 19) wherein the first coupling body and the second coupling body are mounted so as to be rotatable coaxially about an axis of rotation;
(claim 20) wherein the first coupling body is axially displaceable relative to the second coupling body in a direction of the axis of rotation.
Rimpel teaches a similar torque limiter and further teaches
(claim 18) wherein the first coupling body (1) is axially displaceable relative to the second coupling body (2; page 4, ¶6);
(claim 19) wherein the first coupling body (1) and the second coupling body (2) are mounted so as to be rotatable coaxially about an axis of rotation (page 4, ¶6);
(claim 20) wherein the first coupling body (1) is axially displaceable relative to the second coupling body (2) in a direction of the axis of rotation (page 4, ¶6).
It would have been obvious to modify patent ‘708 to include the torque limiter as taught by Rimpel in order to reduce spacing of the coupling arrangement, improve the accuracy and speed of decoupling/coupling, and prevent jamming of split coupling components to prevent overloading of the drive motor and/or abseiling components.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, last line, the hyphen after “position” should be removed.
In claim 8, line 4, “from a first detent elements” should read ---from first detent elements---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
In claim 10, lines 4-5, “wherein in a coupling position, the first detent elements and the second detent elements engage with one another in a form-fitting and frictionally engaged manner”.
In claim 16, “wherein each of the first detent elements and the second detent elements are each arranged equidistant from one another”.
In claim 17, “wherein a first distance between each of the first detent elements is equal to a second distance between each of the second detent elements”.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 and 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“traction means” in claim 1, line 3.
“drive means” in claim 1, line 5.
“pretensioning device” in claim 2, line 2.
“at least one pretensioning means” in claim 2, line 3.
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 § 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 4-9, 11, and 13-14 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.
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 11, the phrase “designed as” in line 2 of claim 4, line 3 of claim 5, and line 3 of claim 11 renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is unclear as to whether or not the action after the phrase actually occurs. Applicant may want to consider using ---configured as--- instead.
Claims 5-9 are rejected because they are dependents of claim 4.
Claims 13-14 are rejected because they are dependents of claim 11.
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) 1-8, 10-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogge (US20180296861A1) in view of Rimpel (DE102006050995A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rogge discloses an abseiling device, comprising: a guide arrangement (25; Figure 2) that is configured to be rotated in two directions for guidance of a traction means (26), a braking device (30) coupled to the guide arrangement (25), wherein a drive means (35) is connectable to the guide arrangement (25) for actuating the guide arrangement (25), and a torque limiter (27) with a first coupling body (31) and a second coupling body (32), wherein the torque limiter (33) decouples the drive means (35) and the guide arrangement (25) when a threshold value of the a torque is exceeded (Abstract), but fails to teach wherein the first coupling body is configured to be displaced in translation relative to the second coupling body between a coupling position and a decoupling position.
Rimpel teaches a similar torque limiter and further teaches wherein the first coupling body (1; Figure 1) is configured to be displaced in translation relative to the second coupling body (2) between a coupling position and a decoupling position (page 4, ¶6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abseiling device of Rogge to include the torque limiter as taught by Rimpel in order to reduce spacing of the coupling arrangement, improve the accuracy and speed of decoupling, and prevent jamming of split coupling components to prevent overloading of the drive motor and/or abseiling components.
Regarding claims 2-8, Rogge discloses the abseiling device, but fails to teach
(claim 2) wherein the torque limiter comprises a pretensioning device with at least one pretensioning means, which pretensions the first coupling body in a direction of the second coupling body into the coupling position;
(claim 3) wherein the pretensioning device is adjustable, so that the threshold value of the torque above which decoupling of the first coupling body and the second coupling body takes place by translational displacement is determined;
(claim 4) wherein the at least one pretensioning means is designed as a spring element;
(claim 5) wherein the at least one pretensioning means is arranged or clamped between an adjusting element designed as an adjusting nut and the first coupling body;
(claim 6) wherein the adjusting element has a radially inwardly directed abutment against which the at least one pretensioning means is axially supported;
(claim 7) wherein the adjusting element has an internal thread which meshes with an external thread provided on the second coupling body;
(claim 8) wherein the at least one pretensioning means is supported axially on a first ball bearing, which is arranged on the first coupling body on an end face facing away from a first detent elements, so that the first coupling body is configured to rotate relative to the at least one pretensioning means.
Rimpel teaches a similar torque limiter and further teaches
(claim 2) wherein the torque limiter comprises a pretensioning device (3, 6; Figure 1) with at least one pretensioning means (6), which pretensions the first coupling body (1) in a direction of the second coupling body (2) into the coupling position;
(claim 3) wherein the pretensioning device (3, 6) is adjustable, so that the threshold value of the torque above which decoupling of the first coupling body (1) and the second coupling body (2) takes place by translational displacement is determined (page 6, ¶1);
(claim 4) wherein the at least one pretensioning means (6) is designed as a spring element (page 4, ¶3-6);
(claim 5) wherein the at least one pretensioning means (6; Figure 1) is arranged or clamped between an adjusting element (3) designed as an adjusting nut and the first coupling body (1);
(claim 6) wherein the adjusting element (3) has a radially inwardly directed abutment (31) against which the at least one pretensioning means (6) is axially supported;
(claim 7) wherein the adjusting element (3) has an internal thread which meshes with an external thread provided on the second coupling body (2; page 6, ¶14);
(claim 8) wherein the at least one pretensioning means is supported axially on a first ball bearing (4; Figure 1), which is arranged on the first coupling body (1) on an end face facing away from a first detent elements (right side locking balls 5), so that the first coupling body (1) is configured to rotate relative to the at least one pretensioning means (6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abseiling device of Rogge to include the torque limiter and pretensioning device as taught by Rimpel in order to improve the accuracy and speed of decoupling to prevent overloading of the drive motor and/or abseiling components.
Regarding claims 10-16, Rogge discloses the abseiling device, but fails to teach
(claim 10) wherein first detent elements are arranged on the first coupling body and second detent elements are arranged on the second coupling body, and wherein in a coupling position, the first detent elements and the second detent elements engage with one another in a form-fitting and frictionally engaged manner;
(claim 11) wherein the first detent elements and the second detent elements are designed as detent balls;
(claim 12) wherein the first detent elements and the second detent elements are frictionally engaged with one another in the decoupling position of the first coupling body and the second coupling body;
(claim 13) wherein the first coupling body has first recesses for receiving the first detent elements and the second coupling body has second recesses for receiving the second detent elements;
(claim 14) wherein the first detent elements protrude from the first recesses and the second detent elements protrude from the second recesses, such that the first detent elements engage with the second detent elements;
(claim 15) wherein the first detent elements are arranged concentrically on a first end face of the first coupling body facing the second coupling body and the second detent elements are arranged concentrically about an axis of rotation on a second end face of the second coupling body facing the first coupling body;
(claim 16) wherein each of the first detent elements and the second detent elements are each arranged equidistant from one another.
Rimpel teaches a similar torque limiter and further teaches
(claim 10) wherein first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) are arranged on the first coupling body (1) and second detent elements (left side locking balls 5) are arranged on the second coupling body (2), and wherein in a coupling position, the first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) and the second detent elements (left side locking balls 5) engage with one another in a form-fitting and frictionally engaged manner (Figures 3 and 5).
(claim 11) wherein the first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) and the second detent elements (left side locking balls 5) are designed as detent balls;
(claim 12) wherein the first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) and the second detent elements (left side locking balls 5) are frictionally engaged with one another in the decoupling position of the first coupling body (1) and the second coupling body (2; Figure 4);
(claim 13) wherein the first coupling body (1) has first recesses (15; Figure 1) for receiving the first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) and the second coupling body (2) has second recesses (25) for receiving the second detent elements (left side locking balls 5);
(claim 14) wherein the first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) protrude from the first recesses (15) and the second detent elements (left side locking balls 5) protrude from the second recesses (25), such that the first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) engage with the second detent elements (left side locking balls 5);
(claim 15) wherein the first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) are arranged concentrically on a first end face (end face of body 1 where recesses 15 are provided; Figure 1) of the first coupling body (1) facing the second coupling body (2) and the second detent elements (left side locking balls 5) are arranged concentrically about an axis of rotation on a second end face (end face of body 2 where recesses 25 are provided) of the second coupling body (2) facing the first coupling body (1);
(claim 16) wherein each of the first detent elements (right side locking balls 5) and the second detent elements (left side locking balls 5) are each arranged equidistant from one another (Figures 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abseiling device of Rogge to include the torque limiter as taught by Rimpel in order to reduce spacing of the coupling arrangement, improve the accuracy and speed of decoupling/coupling, and prevent jamming of split coupling components to prevent overloading of the drive motor and/or abseiling components.
Regarding claims 18-20, Rogge discloses the abseiling device, but fails to teach
(claim 18) wherein the first coupling body is axially displaceable relative to the second coupling body;
(claim 19) wherein the first coupling body and the second coupling body are mounted so as to be rotatable coaxially about an axis of rotation;
(claim 20) wherein the first coupling body is axially displaceable relative to the second coupling body in a direction of the axis of rotation.
Rimpel teaches a similar torque limiter and further teaches
(claim 18) wherein the first coupling body (1) is axially displaceable relative to the second coupling body (2; page 4, ¶6);
(claim 19) wherein the first coupling body (1) and the second coupling body (2) are mounted so as to be rotatable coaxially about an axis of rotation (page 4, ¶6);
(claim 20) wherein the first coupling body (1) is axially displaceable relative to the second coupling body (2) in a direction of the axis of rotation (page 4, ¶6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abseiling device of Rogge to include the torque limiter as taught by Rimpel in order to reduce spacing of the coupling arrangement, improve the accuracy and speed of decoupling/coupling, and prevent jamming of split coupling components to prevent overloading of the drive motor and/or abseiling components.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogge, in view of Rimpel, and in further view of Englert (DE202005005513U1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Rogge discloses the abseiling device, but fails to teach wherein a first distance between each of the first detent elements is equal to a second distance between each of the second detent elements.
Englert teaches a similar torque limiter and further teaches wherein a first distance between each of the first detent elements (K1; Figure 4) is equal to a second distance between each of the second detent elements (K2; page 6, ¶6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abseiling device of Rogge to include the first and second detent element distance as taught by Englert in order to ensure improved engagement and disengagement of the detent elements and reduce improper wear to prevent frequent repairs and maintenance.
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:
Claim 9 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including for disclosing wherein the first ball bearing is arranged in such a way that bearing balls present in the first ball bearing project axially above an upper U-leg.
Rimpel is the closest prior art and further teaches wherein the first ball bearing (4) is arranged in a groove of U-shaped cross-section running concentrically around an axis of rotation in such a way that bearing balls present in the first ball bearing (4) project axially above a lower U-leg, such that the at least one pretensioning means (6) is supported on the bearing balls, but fails to teach wherein the first ball bearing is arranged in such a way that bearing balls present in the first ball bearing project axially above an upper U-leg.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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.
/HENRIX SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
