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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 4, and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12215548 (hereinafter ‘548) in view of Lyon (US3428145A).
Regarding claim 1, patent ‘548 recites a winch utility comprising: a main body comprising: a shell, the shell defining an enclosure; an electric motor contained within at least a portion of the shell; a controller attached to an inner part of the shell and in electronic communication with the electric motor; and a bobbin coupled to the electric motor, but lacks a winch utility for hoisting a payload up a track section, a shelf portion comprising a shelf and a rim, the shelf configured to support the payload, the rim configured to protect the payload on the shelf from falling; and an arm assembly coupling the shelf to the main body, the arm assembly comprising an arm oriented at an acute angle relative to the shelf. Lyon teaches a similar winch utility and further teaches a winch utility for hoisting a payload up a track section (left and right rails of the ladder; Figure 2), a shelf portion (30, 35) comprising a shelf (35) and a rim (30), the shelf (35) configured to support the payload, the rim (30) configured to protect the payload on the shelf (35) from falling; and an arm assembly (36, 37) coupling the shelf (35) to the main body (30, 35, 51, 53, 54), the arm assembly (35, 36) comprising an arm oriented at an acute angle relative to the shelf (35; Figure 3). It would have been obvious to modify claim 1 of patent ‘548 as taught by Lyon to include the shelf portion and arm assembly in order to stably support a load while being lifted without an operator having to hold the load in place.
Regarding claim 4, patent ‘548 recites wherein the shell defines a cable port, and wherein at least a portion of the cable is arranged within the cable port.
Regarding claim 11, patent ‘548 recites wherein the electric motor is a brushless motor.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, “collapsible to a collapsed arranged” should read ---collapsible to a collapsed arrangement---.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 12-14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon (US3428145A) in view of EPS (DE29814678U1).
Regarding claim 1, Lyon discloses a winch utility for hoisting a payload up a track section (TS; see Lyon annotated Figure 2 below), the winch utility comprising: a main body (30, 35, 51, 53, 54) comprising: a shell (51, 53, 54), the shell (51, 53, 54) defining an enclosure; a powertrain assembly (PA) comprising an electric motor (M) contained within at least a portion of the shell (51, 53, 54); and a bobbin (B) coupled to the electric motor (M); a shelf portion (30, 35) comprising a shelf (35) and a rim (30), the shelf (35) configured to support the payload, the rim (30) configured to protect the payload on the shelf (35) from falling; and an arm assembly (36, 37) coupling the shelf (35) to the main body (30, 35, 51, 53, 54), the arm assembly (35, 36) comprising an arm oriented at an acute angle relative to the shelf (35; Figure 3), but fails to teach a controller attached to an inner part of the shell and in electronic communication with the electric motor.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lyon, Annotated Figure 2
EPS teaches a similar winch utility and further teaches a controller (30; Figure 1) attached to an inner part of the shell (55) and in electronic communication with the electric motor (52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the winch utility of Lyon to include the controller as taught by EPS in order to protect the controller and electrical components from impacts and environmental conditions to prevent damage and corrosion.
Regarding claim 2, Lyon discloses a cable (50) coiled around the bobbin (B) by rotation of the electric motor (M), wherein a terminal end of the cable (50) is arranged outside of the shell (54).
Regarding claim 3, Lyon discloses wherein: motion of the electric motor (M) causes the main body (30, 35, 51, 53, 54) to move closer to or further from the terminal end (49) of the cable (50); when the main body (30, 35, 51, 53, 54) moves closer to the terminal end (49), the cable (50) is increasingly coiled around the bobbin (B); and when the main body (30, 35, 51, 53, 54) moves further from the terminal end (49), the cable (50) is increasingly uncoiled from the bobbin (B).
Regarding claim 4, Lyon discloses wherein the shell (54) defines a cable port (CP; see Lyon annotated Figure 2 above), and wherein at least a portion of the cable (50) is arranged within the cable port (CP).
Regarding claim 5, Lyon discloses wherein the shell (54) defines a top side (top surface of shell 54) and a bottom side (bottom surface of shell 54) opposite the top side, and wherein the cable port (CP) is formed through the top side of the shell (54).
Regarding claim 9, Lyon discloses the above winch utility and further teaches wherein the main body (30, 35, 51, 53, 54) further comprises a gear set (gear reduction and belt drive 52, column 3, lines 55-60) coupled to the electric motor (M) and configured to increase torque and decrease speed of rotation of a powertrain output of the powertrain assembly (PA).
Regarding claim 12, Lyon discloses wherein the shelf (35) of the shelf portion (30, 35) is about perpendicular to the main body (30, 35, 51, 53, 54).
Regarding claim 13, Lyon discloses wherein the rim (35) of the shelf portion (30, 35) is about perpendicular to the shelf (35) of the shelf portion (30, 35), and wherein the rim (35) extends in an upward direction from the shelf (35), away from the main body (30, 35, 51, 53, 54).
Regarding claim 14, Lyon discloses wherein the shelf (35) defines a first shelf end (1E; see Lyon annotated Figure 2 below) and an opposite second shelf end (2E), the first shelf end (1E) of the shelf (35) configured to be arranged proximate to the track section (TS), the rim (35) extending in the upward direction from the first shelf end (1E) of the shelf (35).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lyon, Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 16, Lyon discloses wherein the main body (30, 35, 51, 53, 54) further comprises at least one roller (10, 11; Figure 2) rotatably “indirectly” attached to the shell (51, 53, 54) and configured to roll along the track section (TS).
Regarding claim 17, Lyon discloses wherein the at least one roller (10, 11) is rotatably “indirectly” attached to a back side of the shell (51, 53, 54), the back side of the shell (51, 53, 54) configured to face the track section (TS).
Regarding claim 18, Lyon discloses wherein: the main body (30, 35, 51, 53, 54) defines a first side (left side; Figure 2) and a second side (right side) opposite the first side; the at least one roller (10, 11) comprises a first roller (left side rollers 10, 11) rotatably “indirectly” attached to the back side of the shell (51, 53, 54) proximate to the first side and a second roller (right side rollers 10, 11) rotatably “indirectly” attached to back side of the shell (51, 53, 54) proximate the second side; the first roller (left side rollers 10, 11) is configured to engage a first rail (left side rail TS) of the track section (TS); and the second roller (right side rollers 10, 11) is configured to engage a second rail (right side rail TS) of the track section (TS).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon, in view of EPS, and in further view of Wendt (US5343134A).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lyon discloses the above winch utility, but fails to teach wherein the main body further comprises a brake, the gear set coupled to the electric motor by the brake, the brake arranged in a normally-braking position, such that a default arrangement of the powertrain assembly is braking and not in motion.
Wendt teaches a similar winch utility and further teaches wherein the main body (of Lyon) further comprises a brake (49; Figure 2), the gear set (41) coupled to the electric motor (39) by the brake (49), the brake (49) arranged in a normally-braking position (column 6, lines 45-59), such that a default arrangement of the powertrain assembly (39, 75, 41, 25) is braking and not in motion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the winch utility of Lyon to include the brake as taught by Wendt in order to prevent unintentional descent of the winch utility of Lyon and/or load in the absence or stoppage of motor control.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon, in view of EPS, in view of Wendt, and in further view of Ho (US20180022588A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lyon discloses the above winch utility, but fails to teach wherein the electric motor is a brushless motor
Ho teaches a similar winch utility and further teaches wherein the electric motor (104; Figure 2) is a brushless motor (¶0017). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the winch utility of Lyon to include the brushless motor as taught by Ho in order to provide a more accurate output speed and torque and prolong the life span of the device.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon, in view of EPS, and in further view of Ostrander (US3115211A).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lyon discloses the above winch utility, but fails to teach wherein the shelf portion further defines an edge portion extending in a downward direction from the shelf at the second shelf end, opposite the rim.
Ostrander teaches a similar winch utility and further teaches wherein the shelf portion (56) further defines an edge portion (EP; see Ostrander annotated Figure 2 below) extending in a downward direction from the shelf (58) at the second shelf end (2E), opposite the rim (60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the winch utility of Lyon to include the edge portion as taught by Ostrander in order to provide further protection to the shell and other components from impacts.
PNG
media_image2.png
134
311
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ostrander, Annotated Figure 2
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon, in view of EPS, and in further view of Webber (US9944495B2).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lyon discloses the above winch utility, but fails to teach wherein: the first roller is configured to engage an inner edge of the first rail of the track section; and the second roller is configured to engage an inner edge of the second rail of the track section.
Webber teaches a similar winch utility and further teaches wherein: the first roller (1R; see Webber annotated Figure 4 below) is configured to engage an inner edge (IE) of the first rail (1TR) of the track section (16); and the second roller (2R) is configured to engage an inner edge (IE) of the second rail (2TR) of the track section (16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the winch utility of Lyon to include the rollers as taught by Webber in order reduce the extension of the winch utility assembly from the track section and move the center of gravity of the load closer to the track section for better stability.
PNG
media_image3.png
245
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Webber, Annotated Figure 4
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including for disclosing wherein the arm assembly elevates the shelf portion above the top side of the shell.
Lyon is the closest prior art and further teaches an arm assembly supporting the shelf portion above a top side of a shell, but fails to teach wherein the arm assembly elevates the shelf portion above the top side of the shell, since Lyon teaches the shell with the cable port formed through the top side of the shell is above the shelf portion, and the shelf portion is directly attached to a different shell.
Claim 7 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including for disclosing wherein the winch utility is collapsible to a collapsed [arranged] arrangement for transportation of the winch utility.
Webber is the closest prior art and further teaches wherein the shelf portion of the winch utility is collapsible, but fails to teach wherein the winch utility is collapsible to a collapsed [arranged] arrangement for transportation of the winch utility. Furthermore, it would not be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the collapsible shelf portion of Webber with the shelf portion of Lyon since the winch powertrain arrangement of Lyon is directly fixed to the shelf portion, therefore the collapsible shelf portion of Webber would alter and affect the winch powertrain arrangement of Lyon.
Claim 8 would be allowable because it is a dependent of claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, VICTORIA AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313)446-4858. 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.
/H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights