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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 07/07/26 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/07/26; 01/09/26; & 12/01/25 has been acknowledged and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winter et al (US 2011/0268313 hereinafter “Winter”).
Regarding claim 1; Winter discloses a system for evaluating rope (10 @ figures 3, 3a and paragraph [0002]: e.g., a system and a method for testing ropes), the system comprising:
a scope body (24 @ figure 3a) having an inlet end defining an inlet and an outlet end defining an outlet (figure 3a), the scope body (24 @ figure 3a) defining a geometry to receive a rope (10 @ figure 3a);
at least one light (paragraph [0083]: e.g., The illumination of the rope 10 can preferably be accomplished with artificial light sources, which allow an improved contrast in the image data set In particular, the image data capturing device 24 can have high-performance LEDs (light emitting diodes) as a light source) disposed in the scope body (24 @ figure 3a) to illuminate the rope (10 @ figure 3a) as it traverses the scope body (24 @ figure 3a and paragraph [0084]: e.g., the image data capturing device 24 has a rope feed measuring device 64, which can measure or detect the length of the rope 10 displaced along or opposite to the longitudinal direction L);
at least one sensor (26 @ figure 3 and paragraph [0082]: e.g., the image data capturing device 24 comprises cameras 26a-26d, which are arranged in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction L of the rope 10) disposed in the scope body (24 @ figure 3a and paragraph [0083]: e.g., the cameras 26a-26d are displaceable within the image data capturing device 24 relative to the rope in order to adapt the image data capturing device 24 to the diameter of the rope to be tested), the at least one sensor (26 @ figure 3) to sense at least one rope parameter from the rope (10 @ figure 3) as the rope traverses through the scope body (24 @ figure 3a and paragraph [0084]); and
an evaluation module (computer program product @ figure 11 and paragraph [0097]: e.g., the computer program performing the method according to aspects of the invention establishes a link between the elements of the error log 58 and, in particular full, a pictorial representation 60 of the rope portion 30 having the defect (for example, a wire breakage 54)) electrically connected to the at least one sensor (26 @ figure 3) to receive the at least one rope parameter (length, diameter of rope 10 @ figure 3-3a and paragraphs [0044]-[0045]) and determine a rope condition (rope defect 54 @ figure 11 and paragraph [0097]) based on the at least one rope parameter. See figures 1-11
Regarding claim 3; Winter discloses the scope body (24 @ figure 3a) comprises an accurate geometry (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 4; Winter the scope body (24 @ figure 3a) comprises a substantially curvilinear geometry (figures 2, 5, 9-11) that encircles the rope (10 @ figure 3).
Regarding claim 8; Winter discloses the scope body (24 @ figure 3a) further comprises a support structure (62 @ figure 3a) to hold the rope (10 @ figure 3a) as the rope traverses the scope body (24 @ figure 3a and paragraph [0084]: e.g., the longitudinal direction L of the rope 10 around a rope passage opening 62 of the image data capturing device 24. The rope 10 can be shifted through the rope passage opening 62 relatives to the image data capturing device 24 along or opposite to the longitudinal direction L).
Regarding claim 9; Winter discloses the rope (10 @ figure 3a) traverses the scope body (24 @ figure 3a) along an external portion of the scope body (24 @ figure 3a).
Regarding claim 10; Winter discloses a method of evaluating a rope (10 @ figures 3, 3a and paragraph [0002]: e.g., a system and a method for testing ropes, and to a related computer program product), the method comprising:
passing the rope (10 @ figure 3a) over a scope body (24 @ figure 3a), the scope body (24 @ figure 3a) having at least one sensor (26 @ figures 3, 3a and paragraph [0082]: e.g., the image data capturing device 24 comprises cameras 26a-26d, which are arranged in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction L of the rope 10);
detecting a rope parameter (length, diameter of rope 10 @ figure 3-3a and paragraphs [0044]-[0045]) with the sensor (26 @ figures 3, 3a);
transferring the rope parameter (10 @ figure 3, 3a) to an evaluation module (computer program product @ figure 11 and paragraph [0097]);
evaluating the rope parameter (paragraph [0043]-[0045]: e.g., determining the local pictorial diameter Dm of the rope in the image data set… The local diameter Dm is determined along a diameter direction perpendicular to the longitudinal extension or longitudinal direction L of the rope);
detecting a rope condition (rope defect 54 @ figure 11 and paragraph [0052]-[0053]: e.g., rope portions having a potential, determined rope defect can be detected quickly, in particular to perform a visual check of these rope portions on the rope itself and/or by means of the pictorial representation of the rope… rope defects, such as "wire breakage," "strand shift," "notch," "lightning stroke," etc.) based on the evaluation of the rope parameter (paragraphs [0043]-[0045]); and
determining whether the rope (10 @ figure 3, 3a) has passed a rope threshold failure based on the detected rope condition (abstract and paragraph [0021]: e.g., on the basis of the at least one determined quality value, pictorial positions within the image data set of the rope, at which at least one quality value exceeds or falls below a predetermined assigned quality threshold value, are discriminated. A potential rope defect can be assigned to the exceeding or falling below of a quality threshold value, so that discriminating can also comprise discriminating with respect to the presence of a rope defect or a specific rope defect). See figures 1-11
Regarding claim 11; Winter discloses the evaluating, detecting, and determining occurs in substantially real time (paragraph [0010]: e.g., the achievability of the image data set also enables monitoring the rope condition over time. Thus, it is conceivable that a temporal development of the rope condition or a defect can be noticed by assigning the same rope positions to image data recorded at different times).
Regarding claim 12; Winter discloses further comprising controlling at least one of a perspective, a lighting (paragraph [0083]), a resolution, and a throughput.
It is noted that the term “at least one of” is alternative.
Regarding claim 13; Winter discloses further comprising identifying an anomaly (wire breakage 54 @ figure 11) of the rope (30 @ figure 11) based on the detected rope condition (paragraph [0079]: e.g., a pictorial representation 60 of the rope portion 30 having the defect (for example, a wire breakage 54). Advantageously, a human tester can check or verify all potential rope defects visually on the basis of the pictorial representation without actually looking at the rope portion).
Regarding claim 14; Winter discloses further comprising comparing (paragraphs [0020], [0031], and [0085]: e.g., the data input mask 28 comprises the lay length S0 indicated by manufacturer as well as the target value of the diameter D.sub.0. The actual values of the diameter Dm and the lay length Sm, which are determined on the basis of a representative rope portion, can be input and used as a comparative value for the determination of deviations with respect to the local diameter and the lay length) the detected rope parameter to a plurality of entries in a rope condition library (28 @ figure 4) to determine the rope condition (defect rope 54 @ figure 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter et al 9US 2011/0268313 hereinafter “Winter” in view of Veronesi et al (US 2017/0138880 hereinafter “Veronesi”).
Regarding claim 2; Winter discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for an attachment mechanism connected to the scope body to attach the system to a structure. However, Veronesi teaches that it is known in the art to provide an attachment mechanism (22a-22b, 24a-24b @ figure 1) connected to the scope body (14 @ figure 1) to attach the system (10 @ figure 1) to a structure (paragraph [0014]: e.g., drum 14 can be affixed to shaft 20 and supported at opposing axial ends by supports 22a and 22b in which shaft 20 engages supports 22a and 22b at bearings 24a and 24b, respectively. Supports 22a and 22b are attached to a supporting structure (not shown in FIG. 1)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine system and method of Winter with limitation above as taught by Veronesi for the purpose of improving electrical isolation of wires within that strand, thereby facilitating signal transmission through the insulated strand and receipt of the return signal through the remaining strands or vice versa.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter et al 9US 2011/0268313 hereinafter “Winter” in view of Hida (US 2012/0291230).
Regarding claim 7; Winter discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the inlet end comprises a greater volume than the outlet end. However, Hida teaches that it is known in the art to provide the inlet end comprises a greater volume than the outlet end (figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0011]-[0012]: e.g., the through hole 1 includes a first inner wall surface 1a and a second inner wall surface 1b inclined with respect to the first inner wall surface 1a. The wedge 3 is inserted from an inlet of the through hole 1 toward an outlet thereof. A distance between the first inner wall surface 1a and the second inner wall surface 1b at the inlet of the through hole 1 is larger than a distance between the first inner wall surface 1a and the second inner wall surface 1b at the outlet of the through hole 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine system and method of Winter with limitation above as taught by Hida for the purpose of improving acting a tensile load on the rope to draw the rope and the wedge into through hole.
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter et al 9US 2011/0268313 hereinafter “Winter” in view of Padilla et al (US 2019/0218062 hereinafter “Padilla”).
Regarding claim 5; Winter discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the scope body comprises a retractable portion. However, Padilla teaches that it is known in the art to provide the scope body (12 @ figures 1-2) comprises a retractable portion (claims 37-38 and paragraph [0031]: e.g., a rope having a plurality of sensors at least partially contained within the rope; deploying the rope into use; sensing conditions of the rope when in use with the plurality of sensors; retracting the rope; and receiving the sensed conditions in the sensors as the rope is retracted.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine system and method of Winter with limitation above as taught by Padilla for the purpose of maintenance for safety the rope lines.
Regarding claim 6; Winter discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the scope body comprises a substantially circular geometry. However, Padilla teaches that it is known in the art to provide the scope body (12 @ figures 1-2) comprises a substantially circular geometry (figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine system and method of Winter with limitation above as taught by Padilla for the purpose of maintenance for safety the rope lines.
Regarding claim 15; Winter discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for automatically recommending an action based on the rope condition. However, Padilla teaches that it is known in the art to provide automatically recommending an action based on the rope condition (14 @ figures 1-2 and paragraph [0022]: e.g., The sensors can transmit sensed conditions, such as, but not limited to stresses of the rope, temperatures the rope has been exposed to, thickness of the rope (or changes thereof), distance between sensors (and changes thereof), etc.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine system and method of Winter with limitation above as taught by Padilla for the purpose of maintenance for safety the rope lines.
Regarding claim 16; Winter discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the recommended action comprises at least one of end-to-end rotation, line-to-line rotation, repair, and replacement. However, Padilla teaches that it is known in the art to provide the recommended action comprises at least one of end-to-end rotation, line-to-line rotation, repair, and replacement (paragraphs [0002] and [0004]: e.g., a dynamic component for determining and maintaining an accurate retirement criteria is the structural integrity of the rope. The integrity of the rope is used in conjunction with other components including user preferences (e.g., replacement at 50% strength, etc.) and the particular application, (e.g., mooring, cranes and winches, safety lines, etc.) to determine the retirement criteria). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine system and method of Winter with limitation above as taught by Padilla for the purpose of maintenance for safety the rope lines.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Zwayer (US 2019/0030633) discloses systems and methods for inductance compensation in a welding-type system include a reel configured to wind a welding-type cable to reduce a first portion of the welding-type cable extending from the reel, and to unwind to increase the first portion of the welding-type cable extending from the reel, wherein a second portion of the welding-type cable is at least partially wound around the reel when stored.
2) Anthony (US 20090217946) discloses a method for in-situ cleaning and inspecting of a tubular. Inspecting the condition of these ropes require operators to periodically remove sacrificial and replace them with new rope. Analysis of removed sections determines the localized condition of the rope.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
August 19, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights