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.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "auxiliary wedge" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "auxiliary wedge" in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "auxiliary wedge" in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this case all the limitations of claim 21 have been addressed in claim 1, making claim 21 redundant. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeFrance (US 20050066482 A1).
Regarding claim 1, DeFrance discloses a wire rope clamp (10, single jaw wedge dead end) for clamping a wire rope (50, cable conductor), comprising:
a holder (28, gripper body) that is provided with a rope opening (14, cable trough) for receiving a rope (50, cable conductor) and is further provided with a rope wedge channel (24, jaw guide),
a rope wedge (40, jaw) arranged in the rope wedge channel (24, jaw guide), the rope wedge (40, jaw) comprising a rope clamping surface (44, cable gripping surface) and a wedging surface (49, latch track), the wedging surface (49, latch track) facing away from the rope clamping surface (44, cable gripping surface) and extending at a rope wedging angle (α) relative to the rope clamping surface (44, cable gripping surface),
the holder (28, gripper body) further being provided with a rope supporting surface (14, cable trough) and with a wedge countering surface (27, upper lip), the rope supporting surface (14, cable trough) of the holder (28, gripper body) extending along the rope clamping surface (44, cable gripping surface) of the rope wedge (40, jaw) to form an interspace therebetween (figure 6) in which in use a rope section (50, cable conductor) extends that passes through the rope opening (14, cable trough) into the rope wedge channel (24, jaw guide) of the holder (28, gripper body), the wedge countering surface (27, upper lip) of the holder (28, gripper body) extending along the wedging surface (49, latch track) of the rope wedge (40, jaw) to in use cooperate with the wedging surface (49, latch track) of the rope wedge (40, jaw),
wherein the rope clamping surface (44, cable gripping surface) of the rope wedge (40, jaw) is arranged to frictionally engage ([0024] lines 15-18) the rope section (50, cable conductor) with a first amount of friction (F, gripping force), and wherein the wedging surface (49, latch track) of the rope wedge (40, jaw) is arranged to frictionally engage the wedge countering surface (27, upper lip) with a second amount of friction, the second amount of friction being lower than the first amount of friction.
Examiner notes that the latch track (49) is fastened using a releasable latch assembly (60). The releasable latch assembly applies friction, but it is less that the gripping force (F) that is needed to hold against the tension of the conductor (T).
Regarding claim 11, DeFrance discloses that the rope supporting surface (14, cable trough) is smooth relative ([0024] lines 19-24) to the clamping surface (44, cable gripping surface) so as to facilitate slippage of the rope (50, cable conductor) relative to the rope supporting surface (14, cable trough) while the rope (50, cable conductor) pulls the wedging surface (49, latch track) into engagement with the wedge countering surface (27, upper lip).
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 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeFrance (US 20050066482 A1) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Shaw (US 4509233 A).
Regarding claim 2, DeFrance discloses a wire rope clamp (10, single jaw wedge dead end) having a rope wedging angle (α) extending between the wedging surface (49, latch track) and the rope clamping surface (44, cable gripping surface). DeFrance does not explicitly disclose the rope wedging angle (α) being between 3° and 9°.
Regarding claim 2, Shaw teaches a rope clamp (1) having an angled wedge (8, tapered segments), wherein the rope wedging angle (A) at which the wedging surface (9, outer surface) extends relative to the rope clamping surface (surface of 11, slot) is between 3° and 9° (column 4, line 67 – column 5, line 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rope wedging angle of DeFrance to mimic the rope wedging angle as taught by Shaw. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide a small compressive force over a long length of rope. This prevents damage to any ropes used along the transverse direction that it is clamped on (column 5, lines 2-6 of Shaw).
Regarding claim 6, the previously made combination of DeFrance in view of Shaw discloses that a body portion (28, gripper body of DeFrance) of the rope wedge (40, jaw of DeFrance) comprises or is made of high strength steel (column 3, lines 64-65 of Shaw), and a body portion of the holder comprises or is made of mild steel (column 2, lines 21-31 of Shaw).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rope wedge (40) of DeFrance to be made of metal material as taught by Shaw. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to construct the clamp of a material that is friction reducing and corrosion resistant to maintain the longevity of the device and ensure the forces placed on it work with the design (column 2, lines 21-38 of Shaw).
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeFrance (US 20050066482 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 24 above in view of Stone et al. (US 7302740 B1).
Regarding claim 13, DeFrance discloses a wire rope clamp (10, single jaw wedge dead end) having a rope wedge (40, jaw) used in its holder (28, gripper body).
DeFrance does not explicitly disclose the rope clamp having an auxiliary wedge in addition to the rope wedge (40, jaw).
Regarding claim 13, Stone teaches a wire rope clamp (10, line clamping device) with a holder (14, housing) having a rope wedge (40, wheel) and an auxiliary wedge (56, shoe), and the countering surface (58, opposing surface) is provided on the auxiliary wedge (56, shoe).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wedge dead end (10) of DeFrance to include the shoe (56) as taught by Stone. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to close the gap between a space without compromising the engagement of the necessary features that provide tension on the line (column 5, lines 55-60 of Stone).
Regarding claim 14, the previously made combination of DeFrance/Stone discloses that the auxiliary wedge (56, shoe of Stone) comprises an auxiliary wedging surface (60, heel of Stone) that extends along the auxiliary wedge countering surface (27, upper lip of DeFrance) of the holder (28, gripper body of DeFrance) to in use cooperate with said auxiliary wedge countering surface of the holder (27, upper lip of DeFrance).
Regarding claim 15, DeFrance/Stone discloses that the auxiliary wedging surface (60, heel of Stone) faces away from the wedge countering surface (43, shoulders of DeFrance) and extends at an auxiliary wedging angle (figure 3 of Stone) relative to the wedge countering surface (43, shoulders of DeFrance.).
Examiner notes that with the shoe (56) of Stone being placed in the gripper body (28) of DeFrance, the wedge countering surface with change from the upper lip (27) of DeFrance to the shoulders (43) of DeFrance.
Regarding claim 16, DeFrance/Stone discloses that the auxiliary wedging angle at which the auxiliary wedging surface (60, heel of Stone) extends relative to the wedge countering surface (43, shoulders of DeFrance) is between 7° and 20°.
Examiner notes that the shoe (56) of Stone is made of pliable padding material and can be compressed to smaller angles such as 7 degrees.
Regarding claim 17, DeFrance/Stone discloses that the rope wedge (40, jaw of DeFrance) and the auxiliary wedge (56, shoe of Stone) are both at least in part tapered towards (figure 3 of Stone) the rope opening (14, cable trough of DeFrance).
Regarding claim 18, DeFrance/Stone discloses that part of the auxiliary wedge (56, shoe of Stone) protrudes out of the rope entrance opening (14, cable trough of DeFrance) of the holder (28, gripper body of DeFrance).
Examiner notes that figure 3 of Stone shoes the shoe (56) coming to the edge of the openings (20). It is reasonable to assume that as the shoe is compressed is will protrude out of the openings.
Regarding claim 19, DeFrance/Stone discloses that the auxiliary wedge (56, shoe of Stone) is secured to the holder (28, gripper body of DeFrance) via a releasable securing structure.
It is obvious that if the shoe (56) is secured via friction as taught by Stone, in the combination of references the shoe will also be secured via friction between the jaw (40, of DeFrance) and the upper lip (27, of DeFrance)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeFrance (US 20050066482 A1) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Meinhardt (WO 2018234264 A1).
Regarding claim 20, DeFrance discloses a wire rope clamp (10, single jaw wedge dead end), wherein the rope wedge (40, jaw) comprises a rope wedge passage (14, cable trough) through which at least part of the rope section (50, cable conductor) can extend.
DeFrance does not explicitly disclose the rope wedge passage (14, cable trough) being oriented at an angle relative to the rope clamping surface.
Regarding claim 20, Meinhardt teaches a wire rope clamp (10, quick lacing system), wherein the rope wedge passage (40, channel) is oriented at an angle relative to the rope clamping surface (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cable trough (14) of DeFrance to include a winding channel (40) as taught by Meinhardt. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide additional friction to the laces or rope as it bends.
Claim 21, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeFrance (US 20050066482 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 21, DeFrance discloses that a rope section (50, cable conductor), passes through the rope opening (14, cable trough) into the rope wedge channel (24, jaw guide) of the holder (28, gripper body) and is clamped in the interspace between (figure 6) the rope wedging surface (49, latch track) of the rope wedge (40, jaw) and the rope supporting surface (14, cable trough) of the holder (28, gripper body) and wherein the rope clamping surface (44, cable gripping surface) of the rope wedge (40, jaw) frictionally engages ([0024] lines 15-18) the rope section (50, cable conductor) with a first amount of friction (F, gripping force), and wherein the wedging surface (49, latch track) of the rope wedge (40, jaw) frictionally engages the wedge countering surface (27, upper lip) with a second amount of friction, the second amount of friction being lower than the first amount of friction.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that since the latch track (49) is fastened using a releasable latch assembly (60), the releasable latch assembly applies friction, but it is less that the gripping force (F) that is needed to hold against the tension of the conductor (T).
Regarding claim 24, DeFrance discloses a method of clamping a wire rope clamp (10, single jaw wedge dead end) onto a wire rope (50, cable conductor) using a wire rope clamp (10, single jaw wedge dead end) according to claim 1, wherein a section of the rope (50, cable conductor) is inserted through the rope entrance opening (14, cable trough) of the holder (28, gripper body) of the rope clamp (10, single jaw wedge dead end) into the rope wedge channel (24, jaw guide) so that a section of the rope (50, cable conductor) extends through the interspace between the rope clamping surface (44, cable gripping surface) of the rope wedge (40, jaw) and the rope supporting surface (14, cable trough) of the holder (28, gripper body), and wherein the rope (50, cable conductor) is retracted so that the rope (50, cable conductor) engages the rope wedge (40, jaw) via the rope clamping surface (44, cable gripping surface) and entrains the rope wedge (40, jaw) so that the wedging surface (49, latch track) of the rope clamp is pulled into engagement with the wedge countering surface (27, upper lip) and the rope clamping surface (44, cable gripping surface) of the rope wedge (40, jaw) clamps the section of the rope (50, cable conductor) onto the rope supporting surface (14, cable trough) of the holder (28, gripper body).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the claimed method is carried out during normal operation of the clamp. See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding claim 26, DeFrance discloses a method further comprising, after inserting the rope (50, cable conductor) through the rope entrance opening (14, cable trough), and prior to the rope (50, cable conductor) being retracted ([0027] lines 6-8), coupling the rope (50, cable conductor) to the rope wedge (40, jaw), and subsequently bending (figure 2) the rope (50, cable conductor) towards the rope wedge (40, jaw).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the claimed method is carried out during normal operation of the clamp. See MPEP 2112.02. It would have also been obvious that the cable conductor (50) can be bent in a direction depending on the orientation of the single jaw wedge dead end (10), as shown in figure 2.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeFrance (US 20050066482 A1) in view of Stone (US 7302740 B1).
Regarding claim 30, DeFrance discloses a wire rope clamp (10, single jaw wedge dead end) having a rope wedge (40, jaw) used in its holder (28, gripper body), wherein a wire rope (50, cable conductor) is clamped between a rope supporting surface (14, cable trough) of a holder (28, gripper body) of the wire rope clamp (10, single jaw wedge dead end) and a rope clamping surface (44, cable gripping surface) of a rope wedge (40, jaw), which rope wedge (40, jaw) is at least partially positioned in a rope wedge channel (14, cable trough) of the holder (28, gripper body).
DeFrance does not explicitly disclose the rope clamp having an auxiliary wedge in addition to the rope wedge (40, jaw).
Regarding claim 30, Stone teaches a wire rope clamp (10, line clamping device) in which a rope wedge (40, wheel) is at least partially positioned in a rope wedge channel () of a holder (14, housing) together with an auxiliary wedge (56, shoe).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wedge dead end (10) of DeFrance to include the shoe (56) as taught by Stone. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to close the gap between a space without compromising the engagement of the necessary features that provide tension on the line (column 5, lines 55-60 of Stone).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the claimed method is carried out during normal operation of the clamp. See MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding claim 31, the previously made combination of DeFrance/Stone discloses a method, wherein the wire rope clamp (10, single jaw wedge dead end of DeFrance) is clamped on the wire rope (50, cable conductor of DeFrance) by inserting a section of the rope (50, cable conductor of DeFrance) through the rope entrance opening (14, cable trough of DeFrance) of the holder (28, gripper body of DeFrance) of the rope clamp into the rope wedge channel (24, jaw guide of DeFrance) so that a section of the rope (50, cable conductor of DeFrance) extends through an interspace (figure 6 of DeFrance) between the rope clamping surface (44, cable gripping surface of DeFrance) of the rope wedge (40, jaw of DeFrance) and the rope supporting surface of the holder (14, cable trough of DeFrance), and wherein the rope (50, cable conductor of DeFrance) is retracted so that the rope (50, cable conductor of DeFrance) engages the rope wedge (40, jaw of DeFrance) via the rope clamping surface (44, cable gripping surface of DeFrance) and entrains the rope wedge (40, jaw of DeFrance) so that a wedging surface of the rope clamp (49, latch track of DeFrance) is pulled into engagement with a wedge countering surface (43, shoulders of DeFrance) and the rope clamping surface of the rope wedge (44, cable gripping surface of DeFrance) clamps the section of the rope (50, cable conductor of DeFrance) onto the rope supporting surface of the holder (14, cable trough of DeFrance), and further comprising positioning the auxiliary wedge (56, shoe of Stone) providing the countering surface between the rope wedge (27, upper lip of DeFrance) and an auxiliary wedge countering surface (27, upper lip of DeFrance) of the holder (28, gripper body of DeFrance) prior to retracting the rope (50, cable conductor of DeFrance).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the claimed method is carried out during normal operation of the clamp. See MPEP 2112.02.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DeFrance (US 6076236 A) teaches a top opening cable connector.
Pitts (US 20090307876 A1) teaches and angled load bearing assembly.
Morell (US 3952377 A) teaches wedges for gripping rope or cable.
Goepel (US 1201169 A) teaches a cable grip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARA BROOKS whose telephone number is (571)272-9484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am-5pm.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/K.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights