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 § 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakelian AU 2012100754 A4 (hereinafter “Arakelian”, cited in an IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Arakelian teaches a winch handle locking system comprising a winch handle (10) with a winch handle bit (22) protruding down from an inner end of the winch handle, said winch handle bit being adapted to mate with an industry standard winch socket on top of a winch for sailboats (implicit, based on “connector 22 maybe a male or female”, shown in FIG. 1 connector 22 is shown as a socket connected to a male connector 24, if connector 22 is a male than connector 24 would likely be a socket female arrangement).
Arakelian teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly teaching wherein
the winch handle bit being adapted to mate with a winch socket,
the winch handle bit, in its lower end, employs a first magnetic member (30) modified to magnetically interact with a second magnetic member (implicit, material of 24, “magnet 30 is disposed in the recess 26 behind the socket 23 so that the magnet 30 is disposed close to the cooperating connector 24 on the winch input shaft 11 for facilitating secure retention thereon”) placed inside said winch socket, and
said second magnetic member further being mechanically fixed to the winch, inside the winch socket, at a position allowing the winch handle bit to mate with the winch socket, and
the said position and magnetic properties of the first and the second magnetic members are further being adjusted to secure an attraction force between the winch and the winch handle of between 10N and 60N when the winch handle is mounted on the winch.
Instead, it appears the arrangement of Arakelian (socket with a magnetic member on the winch handle bit mating with a male magnetic member) is opposite to what’s being claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was effectively filed, to arrange the socket with magnet on the input shaft (11) and the first magnetic member on the winch handle bit, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (alternative arrangement yielding same predictable result).
Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was effectively filed, to make an attraction force between the winch and the winch handle of between 10N and 60N when the winch handle is mounted on the winch, since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (claimed range would facilitate secure connection and also required force to separate the magnetic members).
Regarding claim 2, refer to rejection to claim 1 as a guide, where the first magnetic member comprises a magnetic conductive material and where the second magnetic member (30 is a permanent magnet) is a permanent magnet.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Arakelian, based on the combination of claim 1, teaches the claimed invention except
where the first magnetic member is a permanent magnet and where the second magnetic member comprises a magnetic conductive material (claim 3), and
where both the first and the second magnetic members are permanent magnets (claim 4).
The examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was effectively filed, that these variations (claim 3 and claim 4) are known equivalents and the selection of any of these known equivalents to provide magnetic coupling of two connectors would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakelian in view of Nijsen WO 2011/049443 A1 (hereinafter “Nijsen”, cited in an IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Arakelian fails to teach where the winch handle comprises a winch handle grip protruding upwards from an outer end of the winch handle and where the winch handle has a smooth upwards curved shape starting from the inner end protruding to the outer end.
Nijsen, with reference to FIG. 3, teaches a winch handle grip protruding upwards from an outer end of the winch handle and where the winch handle has a smooth upwards curved shape starting from the inner end protruding to the outer end.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was effectively filed, to substitute the winch handle of Arakelian with the winch handle of Nijsen in order to achieve the same predictable result of providing a handle grip design that is rotatable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS A GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3094. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/LUIS A GONZALEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights