DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently being examined.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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.
Claims 2-4, 9, 10, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
With respect to Claim 2, the limitation contains the phrase “an acceptable winch design” that is a subjective limitation. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgments without restriction renders the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970) As a result the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The specification provides some commentary related to describing what constitutes an “acceptable winch design” that the Applicant should consider incorporating into the limitation.
With respect to Claim 3, the limitation appears to be lacking a verb within the phrase “wherein determining the contact point at a stowage location”. As a result the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 4, the limitation appears to be lacking a verb within the phrase “wherein determining the contact point at the fairlead.”. As a result the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 9, the limitation appears to be lacking a verb within the phrase “wherein determining bolt slippage at winch plate fastener at the winch.”. As a result the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 10, the limitation appears to be lacking a verb within the phrase “wherein determining bolt slippage at winch plate fastener at a vehicle frame.”. As a result the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 12, the limitation contains the phrase “an acceptable winch design” that is a subjective limitation. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgments without restriction renders the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970) As a result the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The specification provides some commentary related to describing what constitutes an “acceptable winch design” that the Applicant should consider incorporating into the limitation.
With respect to Claim 19, the limitation appears to be lacking a verb within the phrase “wherein determining bolt slippage at winch plate fastener at the winch.”. As a result the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-8, 11, 13-18, and 20 are Allowed. The following is the Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. Independent Claims 1 and 11 each recite limitations that include, inter alia:
determining, at a preprocessor, contact locations for winch components from a mesh model;
determining load vectors at a winch assembly and counter-vectors at a fairlead based on a relative position of a winch wire and a hook retention location based on a winch load rating;
determining, at a non-linear analysis system, plastic strains, deflections, and clearances under the winch load rating based on the contact locations, load vector and counter vectors;
communicating the plastic strains, deflections, and clearances to a post processing system;
comparing the plastic strains to strain limit at a post processor;
comparing the deflection to a deflection limit;
comparing clearances to a clearance limit; and
generating a display based on comparing the plastic strains, comparing the deflection to the deflection limit, comparing clearances to the clearance limit. These limitations, alone and in combination with the other limitations in the independent and dependent claims, were neither found, nor taught or fairly suggested, in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations. Any hypothetical prior art rejection based on these references would require impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Randazzo whose telephone number is 313-446-4903. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00am and 4:00pm ET Monday through Thursday and between 9:00am and 11:00am ET on Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Scott, can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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 the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the 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.
/THOMAS RANDAZZO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights