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
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, the “the brake wheel having peripheral teeth… engage with a mid-point… of rope” (claim 10; fig.3 shows teeth 17 however it is not explained how 17 would engage with a rope) “a rope bearing thrust surface on… the housing” (claim 10 vs. the surface in the housing as shown in the figures), “brake wheel locking means… being spring biased” (claim 10), “spring biased pawls” (claim 12; the only spring shown is 14), “levers slidable radially outwardly” (claim 13), and “slidable locking lever, co-operable with a pawl” (claim 17) 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 Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, “through which to receive” and “the teeth of the or each pinion” “such are grammatically confusing.
Claim 10, “such that when rotation of the brake wheel exceeds the nominal rate and has been arrested, such that when the rate of rotation of the brake wheel relative to the anchored rope exceeds the nominal rate” is repetitive and confusing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The progressive drive further towards the thrust bearing surface as claimed in the last paragraph of claim 10, is not adequately described in the disclosure to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The torsion spring 14 is show cantilevered from the pinion 13b in figure 6, it is not clear from the specification how a torsion spring in this configuration would provide progressive drive. This is the only spring shown in the figures and if there is another drive means it is not adequately disclosed. Further it appears that the torsion spring 14 and pinion 13b would be set to the position in figure 6 regardless of the pawls 24 interacting with the drive lugs 23. What would cause the brake when to move out of this position?
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 10-18 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.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear if the “brake wheel” is specifically required structure of the claim. It is introduced as “a housing for rotatably receiving therewithin a brake wheel.” It is later claimed as drivingly secured to a pinion having teeth, however it is further unclear as to if the pinion teeth are specifically required structure of the claim. The claim is unclear as to if a housing capable of use with a brake wheel and pinion having teeth or a housing in combination with a brake wheel and pinion having teeth.
Regarding claim 10, “the teeth” is claimed multiple times in combination with “peripheral teeth” on the brake wheel and “a respective pinion having teeth”, it is unclear if the teeth is referring to one of these or separate teeth.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear what defines the “stored position” as claimed. See rejection below regarding means, it is not clear what element is being stored and how or where it is stored. Similarly the elements and location of them is not defined in the specification for an “operable position.”
The metes and bounds of “drivingly secured” are unclear.
Regarding claim 11, the elements encompassed by “related components” is unclear.
The lever in claim 16 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim limitation “anchor means”, “automatic locking means”, “brake wheel locking means”, and “brake wheel locking mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is assumed that the anchor means is the yoke 3 and bar 4, for the remainder of the office action, appropriate correction is required. The specification does not clearly define the structure for “the associated automatics locking means” and “a brake wheel locking means” and as such the different requirements of the two separate means are unclear. “Brake wheel locking mechanism” is added in claim 12 making the elements required by the “means” of claim 10 further unclear. The brake wheel locking means includes a detent button which appears unrelated to the previously claimed locking means, see claim 16-18. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
This list of indefinite issues may not be exhaustive the applicant is encouraged to review the claims the ensure that all limitation have proper antecedent basis and support in the specification and figures.
Prior Art
As explained in the rejections above the claims have a multitude of 112 issues as well as claim and drawing objections and determining the patentability of the claims against prior art is not productive for the claims as currently written as it is unclear precisely what is being claimed. For example, it is not clear what elements from the specification correspond to the automatic locking means. It could be assumed that this means is drawn to the pawls 24 and driving lugs 23, however the claim then included a brake wheel locking means that is spring-biased which could also be these elements. It is also noted that it is unclear how the brake wheel would be progressively driven.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL TROY whose telephone number is (571)270-3742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights