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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
a locking device, from claims 12, 14, 16 and 18
a padlock, a shaft lock pin, a cable, a carabiner and a clip from claims 14, 16 and 18.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0001], line 2 “2024 and” should be - - 2024 now U.S. Patent No. 12,151,603 issued November 26, 2024 and - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13, 15 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,151,603. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations required of claims 1-13, 15 and 17 of the instant application are claimed in claims 1-13 and 15, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,151,603.
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 1-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is suggested to amend to - - rotatable to a second axis - -.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is suggested to amend to - - is perpendicular to - -.
The term “substantially” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is suggested to amend to - - a plane parallel to - -.
The term “about” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is suggested to amend to - - the housing to a second axis - -.
The term “substantially” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is suggested to amend to - - is perpendicular to - -.
The term “substantially” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is suggested to amend to - - a plane parallel to - -.
The term “about” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is suggested to amend to - - rotatable to a second axis - -.
The term “substantially” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is suggested to amend to - - is perpendicular to - -.
The term “substantially” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is suggested to amend to - - a plane parallel to - -.
Claims 3-14 are rejected as being dependent upon 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 (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, 2, 4-8, 10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruan et al. (US Patent No. 10,752,156 cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Ruan et al. discloses a load binder apparatus comprising:
a housing (see annotated Fig. 4);
a shaft rotatably mounted at least partially in the housing, the shaft comprising a first gear (see annotated Figs. 2 and 4);
a first attachment member coupled with a first end or portion of the shaft (see annotated Fig. 4);
a second attachment member coupled with a second end or portion of the shaft (see annotated Fig. 4);
a second gear rotatably mounted to the housing and configured to engage the first gear to rotate the shaft around a first axis to move the first attachment member and the second attachment member in opposing directions along the first axis (see annotated Fig. 2); and
a lever pivotally mounted to the housing and configured to operate the second gear (see annotated Fig. 2);
wherein the second gear is rotatable about a second axis which is perpendicular, or substantially perpendicular to the first axis (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Ruan et al. discloses, wherein the lever pivots in a plane parallel to, or substantially parallel to the first axis (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Ruan et al. discloses, wherein the first gear and the shaft are a unitary body (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Ruan et al. further discloses, comprising a ratchet mechanism to allow rotation of the second gear in one direction only (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Ruan et al. discloses, wherein the ratchet mechanism comprises a third gear coupled to the second gear, and a pawl member configured to engage the third gear (see annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
675
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
451
737
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Ruan et al. discloses, wherein the pawl member comprises at least two mating members engageable with the third gear to limit rotation of the third gear in a clockwise direction or an anti-clockwise direction (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Ruan et al. discloses, wherein a first portion of the shaft comprises a first thread in a first direction and a second portion of the shaft comprises a second thread in a second direction (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Ruan et al. discloses, wherein the first attachment member and the second attachment member comprise one or more of the following: a chain link; a lashing hook; a claw hook; a ring; an eyelet; a buckle; a jaw (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Ruan et al. discloses a method for securing a load with a load binder apparatus (see Col. 1, lines 26-31), the method comprising:
attaching a first attachment member of the load binder apparatus to a first attachment point (14) (see annotated Fig. 4);
attaching a second attachment member of the load binder apparatus to a second attachment point (14) (see annotated Fig. 4);
wherein the first attachment member is coupled with a first end or portion of a shaft rotatably mounted at least partially in a housing of the load binder apparatus and the second attachment member is coupled with a second end or portion of the shaft, the shaft comprising a first gear and rotatable around a first axis to move the first attachment member and the second attachment member in opposing directions along the first axis (see annotated Figs. 2 and 4); and
operating a lever pivotally mounted to the housing to rotate a second gear rotatably mounted to the housing about a second axis which is perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the first axis, the second gear configured to engage the first gear (see annotated Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 17, Ruan et al. discloses a load binder apparatus kit comprising:
a housing (see annotated Fig. 4);
a shaft rotatably mountable at least partially in the housing, the shaft comprising a first gear (see annotated Figs. 2 and 4);
a first attachment member couplable with a first end or portion of the shaft (see annotated Fig. 4);
a second attachment member couplable with a second end or portion of the shaft (see annotated Fig. 4);
a second gear rotatably mountable to the housing and configured to engage the first gear to rotate the shaft around a first axis to move the first attachment member and the second attachment member in opposing directions along the first axis (see annotated Figs. 2 and 4); and
a lever pivotally mountable to the housing and configured to operate the second gear (see annotated Figs. 2 and 4);
wherein, when assembled, the second gear is rotatable about a second axis which is perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the first axis (see annotated Figs. 2 and 4).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan et al. (US Patent No. 10,752,156 cited by applicant), in view of Cone (US Patent No. 2,482,655).
Regarding claim 3, Ruan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first gear and/or the second gear is a helical gear or a screw gear.
However, Cone teaches the first gear 32 and/or the second gear 34 is a helical gear (see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first and second gears from Ruan et al. with the helical gears from Cone in order to reduce the numbers of mechanical gears inside the housing.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan et al. (US Patent No. 10,752,156 cited by applicant), in view of Johnson (US Patent No. 2,822,199).
Regarding claim 9, Ruan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first attachment member and the second attachment member comprise an internal thread to engage the first end of the shaft and the second end of the shaft, respectively
However, Johnson teaches the first attachment member (2) and the second attachment member (2a) comprise an internal thread (5) to engage the first end of the shaft and the second end of the shaft (8), respectively (see Figs. 1 and 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first attachment member and the second attachment member from Ruan et al., with the attachment members with internal thread from Johnson, in order to protect thread from debris.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan et al. (US Patent No. 10,752,156 cited by applicant), in view of Kay (US Patent No. 7,249,907).
Regarding claim 11, Ruan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a locking arrangement to secure the lever in at least one position.
However, Kay teaches a locking arrangement to secure the lever in at least one position (see annotated Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the load binder apparatus from Ruan et al. with a locking arrangement as taught by Kay in order to secure the lever during cargo transportation.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ruan et al. in view of Kay discloses, wherein the locking arrangement comprises at least one aperture in the housing configured to align with an aperture in the lever to receive a locking device therethrough to secure the lever in position (see annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ruan et al. in view of Kay discloses, wherein the at least one aperture is provided in an elongate raised portion of the housing and the lever comprises a channel extending therethrough to receive the elongate raised portion (see annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ruan et al. in view of Kay discloses, wherein the locking device is one of the following: a padlock; a shaft lock pin; a cable; a carabiner; a clip (see annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
299
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan et al. (US Patent No. 10,752,156 cited by applicant), in view of Cone (US Patent No. 2,482,655), Johnson (US Patent No. 2,822,199), and Kay (US Patent No. 7,249,907).
Regarding claim 16, Ruan et al. discloses, wherein the load binder apparatus kit comprises any one or more of the following:
wherein the lever pivots in a plane parallel to, or substantially parallel to the first axis (see annotated Figs. 2 and 4);
wherein the first gear and the shaft are a unitary body (see annotated Fig. 2);
a ratchet mechanism to allow rotation of the second gear in one direction only (see annotated Fig. 2);
wherein the ratchet mechanism comprises a third gear coupled to the second gear, and a pawl member configured to engage the third gear (see annotated Fig. 2);
wherein the pawl member comprises at least two mating members engageable with the third gear to limit rotation of the third gear in a clockwise direction or an anti-clockwise direction (see annotated Fig. 2);
wherein a first portion of the shaft comprises a first thread in a first direction and a second portion of the shaft comprises a second thread in a second direction (see annotated Fig. 4);
wherein the first attachment member and the second attachment member comprise one or more of the following: a chain link; a lashing hook; a claw hook; a ring; an eyelet; a buckle; a jaw (see annotated Fig. 4);
Ruan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for,
wherein the first gear and/or the second gear is a helical gear or a screw gear;
wherein the first attachment member and the second attachment member comprise an internal thread to engage the first end of the shaft and the second end of the shaft, respectively;
a locking arrangement to secure the lever in at least one position;
wherein the locking arrangement comprises at least one aperture in the housing configured to align with an aperture in the lever to receive a locking device therethrough to secure the lever in position;
wherein the at least one aperture is provided in an elongate raised portion of the housing and the lever comprises a channel extending therethrough to receive the elongate raised portion;
wherein the locking device is one of the following: a padlock; a shaft lock pin; a cable; a carabiner; a clip.
However, Cone teaches the first gear (32) and/or the second gear (34) is a helical gear (see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first and second gears from Ruan et al. with the helical gears from Cone in order to reduce the numbers of mechanical gears inside the housing.
Also, Johnson teaches the first attachment member (2) and the second attachment member (2a) comprise an internal thread (5) to engage the first end of the shaft and the second end of the shaft (8), respectively (see Figs. 1 and 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first attachment member and the second attachment member from Ruan et al., with the attachment members with internal thread from Johnson, in order to protect thread from debris.
Kay teaches a locking arrangement to secure the lever in at least one position (see annotated Fig. 3);
wherein the locking arrangement comprises at least one aperture in the housing configured to align with an aperture in the lever to receive a locking device therethrough to secure the lever in position (see annotated Fig. 3);
wherein the at least one aperture is provided in an elongate raised portion of the housing and the lever comprises a channel extending therethrough to receive the elongate raised portion (see annotated Fig. 3);
wherein the locking device is one of the following: a padlock; a shaft lock pin; a cable; a carabiner; a clip (see annotated Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the load binder apparatus from Ruan et al. with a locking arrangement as taught by Kay in order to secure the lever during cargo transportation.
Regarding claim 18, Ruan et al. discloses, wherein the load binder apparatus kit comprises any one or more of the following:
wherein the lever pivots in a plane parallel to, or substantially parallel to the first axis (see annotated Figs. 2 and 4);
wherein the first gear and the shaft are a unitary body (see annotated Fig. 2);
a ratchet mechanism to allow rotation of the second gear in one direction only (see annotated Fig. 2);
wherein the ratchet mechanism comprises a third gear coupled to the second gear, and a pawl member configured to engage the third gear (see annotated Fig. 2);
wherein the pawl member comprises at least two mating members engageable with the third gear to limit rotation of the third gear in a clockwise direction or an anti-clockwise direction (see annotated Fig. 2);
wherein a first portion of the shaft comprises a first thread in a first direction and a second portion of the shaft comprises a second thread in a second direction (see annotated Fig. 4);
wherein the first attachment member and the second attachment member comprise one or more of the following: a chain link; a lashing hook; a claw hook; a ring; an eyelet; a buckle; a jaw (see annotated Fig. 4);
Ruan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for,
wherein the first gear and/or the second gear is a helical gear or a screw gear;
wherein the first attachment member and the second attachment member comprise an internal thread to engage the first end of the shaft and the second end of the shaft, respectively;
a locking arrangement to secure the lever in at least one position;
wherein the locking arrangement comprises at least one aperture in the housing configured to align with an aperture in the lever to receive a locking device therethrough to secure the lever in position;
wherein the at least one aperture is provided in an elongate raised portion of the housing and the lever comprises a channel extending therethrough to receive the elongate raised portion;
wherein the locking device is one of the following: a padlock; a shaft lock pin; a cable; a carabiner; a clip.
However, Cone teaches the first gear (32) and/or the second gear (34) is a helical gear (see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first and second gears from Ruan et al. with the helical gears from Cone in order to reduce the numbers of mechanical gears inside the housing.
Also, Johnson teaches the first attachment member (2) and the second attachment member (2a) comprise an internal thread (5) to engage the first end of the shaft and the second end of the shaft (8), respectively (see Figs. 1 and 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first attachment member and the second attachment member from Ruan et al., with the attachment members with internal thread from Johnson, in order to protect thread from debris.
Kay teaches a locking arrangement to secure the lever in at least one position (see annotated Fig. 3);
wherein the locking arrangement comprises at least one aperture in the housing configured to align with an aperture in the lever to receive a locking device therethrough to secure the lever in position (see annotated Fig. 3);
wherein the at least one aperture is provided in an elongate raised portion of the housing and the lever comprises a channel extending therethrough to receive the elongate raised portion (see annotated Fig. 3);
wherein the locking device is one of the following: a padlock; a shaft lock pin; a cable; a carabiner; a clip (see annotated Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the load binder apparatus from Ruan et al. with a locking arrangement as taught by Kay in order to secure the lever during cargo transportation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 W. 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.
/LOUIS A. MERCADO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677