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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 13, 14, 15, 16, and 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation:
"the hoist drum"
in
Line 4.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation:
"the taper"
in
Line 1.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claims 14, 15, 16:
the claims are rejected for depending from a rejected claim
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 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by Campbell (US 20190368159 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Campbell discloses:
A hoist system for an industrial machine (118) [0005 & 0024 & 0029] including a digging attachment (124) supported for movement (120 & 122 & 132 & 134) [0018 & 0019 & 0020 & 0021] to excavate material, the hoist system comprising:
a rope attachment device (194) configured to be coupled to the digging attachment (Fig. 6 & Fig. 12) [0171];
a synthetic rope (150) [0171] configured to extend between a hoist drum [0021] and the rope attachment device (Fig. 3 & Fig. 4) [0021], at least a portion of the synthetic rope configured to be selectively wrapped onto the hoist drum [0021]; and
a rope protector (146 & 148 & 204 & 206) [0171 & 0172 & 0174] extending along an outer surface of the synthetic rope (Fig. 12) [0171 & 0172 & 0174].
Regarding Claim 2, Campbell discloses:
the rope protector is coupled to a portion of the synthetic rope adjacent the rope attachment device [0171 & 0172].
Regarding Claim 3, Campbell discloses:
the rope protector covers a length of the synthetic rope extending away from the rope attachment device, the length being between approximately 1 foot and approximately 10 feet (Fig. 12) [0171 & 0172].
Regarding Claim 4, Campbell discloses:
the synthetic rope is a non-homogeneous construction [0169] and the rope protector is integrally formed with the synthetic rope, the rope protector including a damage-resistant material braided into a portion of the synthetic rope to form an outer jacket layer (Fig. 12) [0169 & 0171 & 0172].
Regarding Claim 5, Campbell discloses:
the synthetic rope is a non-homogeneous construction and the rope protector is integrally formed with the synthetic rope, the rope protector including a damage-resistant material wound around a portion of the synthetic rope to form an outer jacket layer (Fig. 12) [0169 & 0171 & 0172].
Regarding Claim 6, Campbell discloses:
the rope protector is coupled to the rope attachment device and extends around a portion of the synthetic rope (Fig. 12) [0169 & 0171 & 0172].
Regarding Claim 7, Campbell discloses:
the rope protector includes at least one of a rubber hose, a steel braided hose, and a wire sleeve [0169 & 0171 & 0172 & 0174].
Regarding Claim 8, Campbell discloses:
the rope protector is coupled to a portion of the synthetic rope that engages the rope attachment device (Fig. 12) [0171 & 0172 & 0174].
Regarding Claim 10, Campbell discloses:
a seal (148) positioned adjacent an end of the rope protector to inhibit ingress of abrasive contaminants (Fig. 12) [0164].
Regarding Claim 11, Campbell discloses:
a guide (146) to facilitate a transition of the synthetic rope into or out of the rope protector [0162 & 0163 & 0167 & 0172].
Regarding Claim 12, Campbell discloses:
at least a portion of the synthetic rope is coupled to the rope attachment device, wherein the rope protector includes a shield (146) coupled to the rope attachment device and extending around the portion of the synthetic rope coupled to the rope attachment device (Fig. 2) [0162 & 0163 & 0167 & 0172].
Regarding Claim 13, Campbell discloses:
A hoist system for an industrial machine (118) [0005 & 0024 & 0029] including a digging attachment (124) supported for movement (120 & 122 & 132 & 134) [0018 & 0019 & 0020 & 0021] to excavate material, the hoist system comprising:
a rope attachment device (194) configured to be coupled to the digging attachment (Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 6 & Fig. 12) [0171];
a synthetic rope (150) [0171] configured to extend between a hoist drum [0021] and the rope attachment device [0021], at least a portion of the synthetic rope configured to be selectively wrapped onto the hoist drum [0021]; and
a first rope protector (146 & 148 & 204 & 206) [0171 & 0172 & 0174] integrally coupled to a portion of the synthetic rope proximate the rope attachment device (Fig. 12) [0171 & 0172 & 0174].
Regarding Claim 17, Campbell discloses:
A synthetic hoist rope for a hoist system of an industrial machine (118) [0005 & 0024 & 0029], the synthetic hoist rope comprising:
a first end configured to be coupled to a hoist drum of the hoist system (Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 6) [0021];
a second end configured to be coupled to the hoist drum of the hoist system (Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 6) [0021];
a middle portion configured to be coupled to a rope attachment device (Fig. 6 & Fig. 12); and
a rope protector integrally coupled to and circumferentially surrounding at least part of the middle portion (146 & 148 & 204 & 206) [0171 & 0172 & 0174].
Regarding Claim 18, Campbell discloses:
the rope protector extends a length that is less than 10% of the total length of the synthetic hoist rope (Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 6 & Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 19, Campbell discloses:
the taper (148) is configured to prevent ingress of abrasive contaminants between the rope protector and the middle portion [0164].
Regarding Claim 20, Campbell discloses:
the rope protector is flexible [0169 & 0176].
Regarding Claim 21, Campbell discloses:
an end of the rope protector has a taper (148) from an outermost surface of the rope protector to an outer surface of the middle portion (Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 22, Campbell discloses:
a diameter of the first end is larger than a diameter of the rope protector (Fig. 12).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 9, 14, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US 20190368159 A1) in view of Qian et al. (WO 2023022876 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Campbell does not teach:
the rope protector is a metallic tube or pipe.
Qian teaches:
A hoist system for an industrial machine [33] including a digging attachment (1) supported for movement [34] to excavate material, the hoist system comprising:
a rope attachment device (100) configured to be coupled to the digging attachment (Fig. 1) [38];
a rope (25) [34] configured to extend between a hoist [50] and the rope attachment device (Fig. 1) [50];
a rope protector (110) [38 & 39 & 40 & 41 & 42] extending along an outer surface of the rope (Fig. 1) [38 & 39 & 40 & 41 & 42]; and
the rope protector is a metallic tube or pipe [38 & 39 & 40 & 41 & 42].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rope protector for protecting a hoist rope of an excavator taught by Campbell with the rope protector for protecting a hoist rope of an excavator where the rope protector is a metallic tube or pipe taught by Qian in order to provide a protection means with increased durability to reduce the needed intervals for replacement.
Regarding Claim 14, Campbell does not teach:
a second rope protector configured to partially surround the synthetic rope proximate the rope attachment device, and wherein the synthetic rope can move relative to the second rope protector.
Qian teaches:
a first roper protector (112) coupled to the rope (Fig. 6 & Fig. 7) [41];
a second rope protector (113) configured to partially surround the rope proximate the rope attachment device (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2) [38 & 39 & 40 & 41 & 42], and wherein the rope can move relative to the second rope protector [38 & 39 & 40 & 41 & 42].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rope protector for protecting a hoist rope of an excavator taught by Campbell with the rope protector for protecting a hoist rope of an excavator where the rope protector comprises a first rope protector coupled to the rope and a second rope protector configured to partially surround the rope proximate the rope attachment device, and wherein the rope can move relative to the second rope protector taught by Qian in order to provide a protection means with a simplified means of removal and replacement for servicing the system.
Regarding Claim 15, Campbell teaches:
the first rope protector is flexible [0169 & 0176].
Campbell does not teach:
the second rope protector is rigid.
Qian teaches:
the second rope protector is rigid [41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rope protector for protecting a hoist rope of an excavator, where the first rope protector is flexible taught by Campbell with the rope protector for protecting a hoist rope of an excavator where the rope protector comprises a first rope protector coupled to the rope and a second rope protector configured to partially surround the rope proximate the rope attachment device, and wherein the rope can move relative to the second rope protector where the second rope protector is rigid taught by Qian in order to provide a protection means with stabilizing function to maintain the posture of the hoist rope thereby reducing wear from the hoist rope shifting positions.
Regarding Claim 16, Campbell does not teach:
at least part of the first rope protector can be received within the second rope protector.
Qian teaches:
at least part of the first rope protector can be received within the second rope protector (Fig. 6 & Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rope protector for protecting a hoist rope of an excavator, where the first rope protector is flexible taught by Campbell with the rope protector for protecting a hoist rope of an excavator where the rope protector comprises a first rope protector coupled to the rope and a second rope protector configured to partially surround the rope proximate the rope attachment device, and wherein the rope can move relative to the second rope protector where the second rope protector is rigid and at least part of the first rope protector can be received within the second rope protector taught by Qian in order to provide a protection means with a simplified means of removal and replacement for servicing the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patent publications US 20170356481 A1 have been cited by the examiner as pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure because they teach: a rope protector for a hoist rope of an excavator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 571-272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights