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, the reducing gear in claim 16, and the control member and the joystick in claim 17 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words (166 words). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 17, 19, and 20 recite “said drive means” or “the drive means”, which is inconsistent with the “rotational drive means” in claims 1 and 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 13, 17, and 19-20 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, regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said first guide" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring back to the extraction guide in claim 4.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the taut strand" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the extraction guide” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second region” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the channel being tangential to the guide pulley and extending along an axis passing through the center of the grip pulley, the inlet guide and the extraction guide being formed in one piece” but it is unclear the meaning of this limitation. Does it mean the channel extends along an axis passing through just the center of the grip pulley or does it mean the channel extends along an axis passing through the grip pulley, the inlet guide, and the extraction guide? It is unclear which components are formed in one piece. Is the grip pulley, the inlet guide, and the extraction guide formed in one piece or is it just the inlet guide and the extraction guide? It seems to be missing an “and” to divide up two different ideas.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the grip pulley, the guide pulley, and the clamping pulley are arranged so as to define a triangle having an angle of 45 ± 2° at the grip pulley, an angle of 58 ± 2° at the guide pulley, and/or an angle of 76 ± 2° at the clamping pulley”. It is unclear if “a triangle having an angle of 45 ± 2° at the grip pulley, an angle of 58 ± 2° at the guide pulley” is an “and” or “or” listing due to the “and/or” at the end of the list. Does the triangle require “a triangle having an angle of 45 ± 2° at the grip pulley” and “an angle of 58 ± 2° at the guide pulley”? It is unclear if it only needs one of these angles, or at least two of these angles.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 12, 15, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Calver (US 20060017047).
Regarding claim 1, Calver teaches of (fig. 1) a rope access device (rope climbing device 10) for moving along a rope (rope or cable 12) comprising:
a frame (fig. 2, chassis 40) having, in service, a first region (an upper region) facing toward a portion of the rope under tension (fig. 1, rope 12 is under tension);
a grip pulley (main pulley wheel 20) mounted on said frame (40) and comprising on the periphery thereof a groove (V-shaped groove 100) enabling the rope (12) to be hauled by grip (¶0062, rope is gripped in the groove 100), the grip pulley (20) being coupled to rotational drive means attached to the frame (40) (¶0041, main pulley 20 has a rotational drive means to achieve a rotational speed);
a guide pulley (guide wheel 24) located close to said grip pulley (20) (seen in fig. 1), the guide pulley (24) being capable of guiding the rope (20) under tension in the groove (100) of said grip pulley (20) (seen in fig. 1); and
a clamping pulley (wheel 26) exerting pressure on the rope (12) toward said grip pulley (20) at the slack strand (12b) (seen in fig. 1);
wherein the guide pulley (24) and the clamping pulley (26) are arranged close to one another in the first region of the frame (40) so as to wrap the rope (12) around the grip pulley (20) over at least half of the circumference of the latter (seen in fig. 1);
wherein the rope (12) exits from the grip pulley (20) at the first region of the frame (seen in fig. 1); and
wherein the clamping pulley (26) is configured to clamp the rope in the bottom of the groove (100) of the grip pulley (20) and to eject the slack strand from the groove (100) of the grip pulley (seen in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Calver teaches of claim 1, and further comprising an anchoring point (harness attachment member 42) for a flexible link or a rigid structure capable of supporting a user or a load (¶0051, anchoring point 42 attaches to a user on a harness or a load for rigidly mounting to the frame 40), said anchoring point being linked to the frame (40) in a second region of the latter (region just around the anchoring point is another region on the frame 40. Examiner notes that the second region is not further described and the frame 40 can be divided in any number of ways into different regions).
Regarding claim 3, Calver teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 1) comprising an extraction means (rope extractor 102), arranged in the first region of the frame (40) between the clamping pulley (26) and the guide pulley (24) so as to extract the rope (12) from the groove (100) of the grip pulley (20) (¶0065, rope extractor 102 extracts the rope 12 out of the groove 100), the extraction means (102) comprising an extraction finger extending into the groove of the grip pulley (¶0065, elongate member of the extractor 102 projects into the groove 100 of the grip pulley 20).
Regarding claim 4, Calver teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 1) comprising an extraction guide (102) positioned between the guide pulley (24) and the clamping pulley (26) (seen in fig. 1), said first guide (102) defining a curved guide surface (curved cam surface 104) which cooperates with the clamping pulley (26) so as to assist in extraction of the slack strand (¶0065, curved cam surface 104 engages and extracts the rope 12 out of the groove 100 and guides the rope to the clamping pulley 26 to be the slack stand 12b).
Regarding claim 12, Culver teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 1) wherein said guide pulley (24) and said clamping pulley (26) are positioned in such a manner that the rope (20) is engaged in said groove (100) over an angle of at least 200° (seen in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Culver teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 1) wherein, in use, the first region is the upper part of the frame (upper part of frame 40 is the first region), the second region being the lower part (lower part as the second region).
Regarding claim 16, Culver teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 1) wherein the rotational drive means comprise a motor (motor 14) coupled via a reducing gear (¶0035, motor 14 couple to a gear reduction mechanism 18) to a shaft (fig. 3, main drive shaft 66) on which is mounted said grip pulley (20) (fig. 3, the motor is coupled to the shaft of the grip pulley 20 via the reducing gears of the gear reduction mechanism 18).
Regarding claim 18, Culver teaches of claim 1, and comprising a mechanical service brake (fig. 3, electronic brake 110) which is normally closed at rest (¶0021, the brake will be closed, or restrain rotation, when at rest, or the power is off).
Regarding claim 19, Culver teaches of claim 1, and wherein the grip, clamping and guide pulleys are circumscribed by the frame (fig. 1, grip pulley 20, clamping pulley 26, and guide pulley 24 follow the circumference of the device such that they are circumscribed by the frame 40) and covered by a first cover (¶0034, fig. 2, front cover 72) and/or wherein the drive means is covered by a second cover (fig. 2, back cover 69 covers the back of the drive means in the device), and comprising a handle (¶0023, the invention may have a manual handle).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calver in view of Kaufer (US 3721426).
Regarding claim 5, Calver teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 1) comprising an inlet guide (guide member 94) positioned at the inlet of the guide pulley (24) (seen in fig. 1) and defining an insertion channel for the rope (¶0054, guide member 92 has a restricted aperture through which the rope may be squeezed and held in an initial position. This rope stay 94 serves as an initial guide means for a rope 12 entering the climbing device 10.).
Culver does not appear to teach of the channel being tangential to the guide pulley and extending along an axis passing through the center of the grip pulley, the inlet guide and the extraction guide being formed in one piece.
Kaufer teaches of (fig. 1) the channel (inlet channel for cable 9 for guide system 11) being tangential to the guide pulley (deflector pulley 21) (seen in fig. 1, the cable 9 follows the same tangential path as seen in fig. 1 of the applicant’s invention) and extending along an axis passing through the center of the grip pulley (as best understood by the 112b rejection, the channel extends along a vertical axis that passes through the center of the grip pulley 3), the inlet guide and the extraction guide (left side of the guide system 11 is an extraction guide for cable 9) being formed in one piece (as best understood by the 112b rejection above, the inlet guide and the extraction guide is formed in one piece as a guide system 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Culver to incorporate the teachings of Kaufer of the channel being tangential to the guide pulley and extending along an axis passing through the center of the grip pulley, the inlet guide and the extraction guide being formed in one piece in order to push and guide the rope along one direction to the grip pulley and to reduce the amount of moving components that could be moved out of place or more easily damaged.
Regarding claim 7, Culver teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the axis of rotation of the grip pulley passes through the center of gravity of the rope access device.
Kaufer teaches of (fig. 1) wherein the axis of rotation of the grip pulley (driving pulley 3) passes through the center of gravity of the rope access device (the axis of rotation of the grip pulley is at the center of the sufficiently circular device, which is where the center of gravity is located).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Culver to incorporate the teachings of Kaufer of wherein the axis of rotation of the grip pulley passes through the center of gravity of the rope access device in order to concentrate the load and force around the center of gravity such that it would better control the ascension and descension of the rope and be less prone to swaying.
Claims 6, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calver in view of Timmermans (US 20160297651).
Regarding claim 6, Culver teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein said clamping pulley is retractably mounted on an arm that pivots relative to said frame cooperating with locking means for locking this arm in a use position, wherein, in the use position, the clamping pulley clamps the rope in the bottom of the groove of the grip pulley and wherein, in a retracted position, the clamping pulley is withdrawn to permit placement or release of the rope.
Timmermans teaches of (fig. 1) wherein said clamping pulley (clamping pulley 26) is retractably mounted on an arm that pivots relative to said frame (frame 12) (¶0053, resilient system 50 makes it possible to retract the clamping pulley 26 relative to frame 12) cooperating with locking means for locking this arm in a use position (¶0053, the system 50 can be locked in a use position), wherein, in the use position, the clamping pulley (26) clamps the rope (rope 20) in the bottom of the groove (groove 16) of the grip pulley (grip pulley 14) (seen in fig. 1) and wherein, in a retracted position (fig. 1, ¶0053, retracted position shown in broken lines), the clamping pulley is withdrawn to permit placement or release of the rope (¶0023, the retracted position permits placement or release of the rope 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Culver to incorporate the teachings of Timmermans of wherein said clamping pulley is retractably mounted on an arm that pivots relative to said frame cooperating with locking means for locking this arm in a use position, wherein, in the use position, the clamping pulley clamps the rope in the bottom of the groove of the grip pulley and wherein, in a retracted position, the clamping pulley is withdrawn to permit placement or release of the rope in order to further control the movement of the rope.
Regarding claim 10, Culver teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the device has a force efficiency greater than 85% satisfying the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
137
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where D is the wrap diameter of the grip pulley and d the diameter of the rope.
Timmermans teaches of wherein the device has a force efficiency greater than 85% satisfying the formula above (¶0043, Preferably, a wrap coefficient (ratio of wrap diameter to rope diameter) of the order of 14 to 18 with a pulley having a wrap diameter of at least 150 mm will be desirable. The wrap coefficient of 14 to 18 is plugged into the D/d of the formula to give a range of 89% to 91%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Culver to incorporate the teachings of Timmermans of wherein the device has a force efficiency greater than 85% satisfying the formula above in order to limit wear as motivated by Timmermans in para. 0026.
Regarding claim 11, Culver teaches of claim 1, and wherein the rope has a diameter of between 8.0 and 12.0 mm (¶0063, use with ropes of 10-13 mm diameter).
Culver does not appear to teach of the grip pulley has a wrap diameter of at least 8.0 cm.
Timmermans teaches of the grip pulley has a wrap diameter of at least 8.0 cm (claim 55, the grip pulley having a wrap diameter of at least 150 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Culver to incorporate the teachings of Timmermans of the grip pulley has a wrap diameter of at least 8.0 cm in order to choose a wrap diameter that would satisfy a wrap coefficient to limit rope wear as motivated by Timmermans in para. 0043.
Regarding claim 14, Culver teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the grip pulley has a diameter of at least 80 mm and a wrap coefficient of the order of 8.
Timmermans teaches of wherein the grip pulley has a diameter of at least 80 mm (claim 55, the grip pulley having a wrap diameter of at least 150 mm) and a wrap coefficient (¶0043, Preferably, a wrap coefficient (ratio of wrap diameter to rope diameter) of the order of 14 to 18 with a pulley having a wrap diameter of at least 150 mm will be desirable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Culver to incorporate the teachings of Timmermans of wherein the grip pulley has a diameter of at least 80 mm and a wrap coefficient in order to choose a wrap diameter that would satisfy a wrap coefficient to limit rope wear as motivated by Timmermans in para. 0043.
It should be noted that the wrap coefficient as claimed does not show criticality as disclosed in the specifications or the drawings.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a wrap coefficient of the order of 8 or any desired order in order to pick a wrap coefficient for a desired force and speed of the ascension and descension of the rope while limiting rope tear, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culver.
Regarding claim 8, Culver teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the distance between the center of the guide pulley and the center of the grip pulley is between 1.6 and 2 times the wrap radius of the grip pulley.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the distance between pulleys of the device such as the distance between the center of the guide pulley and the center of the grip pulley is between 1.6 and 2 times the wrap radius of the grip pulley in order to try a finite number of possible arrangements to give a desirable speed for rope movement and distribution of force along the device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Culver teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the grip pulley, the guide pulley, and the clamping pulley are arranged so as to define a triangle having an angle of 45 ± 2° at the grip pulley, an angle of 58 ± 2° at the guide pulley, and/or an angle of 76 ± 2° at the clamping pulley.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the angle between pulleys of the device such wherein the grip pulley, the guide pulley, and the clamping pulley are arranged so as to define a triangle having an angle of 45 ± 2° at the grip pulley, an angle of 58 ± 2° at the guide pulley, and/or an angle of 76 ± 2° at the clamping pulley in order to try a finite number of possible arrangements to give a desirable speed for rope movement and distribution of force along the device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calver in view of Aldred et al. (US 20140299411), hereinafter Aldred.
Regarding claim 13, Culver teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 2) wherein said groove (100) is defined by two sidewalls (hubs 20A, 20B), the spacing of which gradually reduces as a function of depth, so forming a V groove (¶0063, the spacing gradually reduces as a function of depth towards the center of the pulley 20, so forming a V groove), the V groove having an aperture angle of 25 to 35° (¶0007, The inwardly directed side walls of this V-shaped groove will usually define an angle of between 5 and 35), and the sidewalls of the groove have a relief pattern for increased grip (¶0009, gripping means of the V-shaped groove may comprise of a plurality of radially extending ridges and grooves).
Culver does not appear to teach of comprising trapezoidal ribs inclined in the direction of the taut strand.
Aldred teaches of comprising trapezoidal ribs (fig. 6, ¶0061, protrusions 605 of the drive pulley 114 are roughly trapezoidal in shape) inclined in the direction of the taut strand (fig. 1, protrusions 605 surround the circumference of the pulley 114 and a portion of them faces the taut strand 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Culver to incorporate the teachings of Aldred of comprising trapezoidal ribs inclined in the direction of the taut strand in order to provide angled frictional contact on the rope and control the rotational speed.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calver in view of Elnore (US 20170241203).
Regarding claim 17, Culver teaches of claim 1, and comprising a control member configured to control said drive means, the control member capable of remotely controlling said drive means (¶0107, could easily be automated with the appropriate electronic circuit such that power to the motor could be activated remotely by use of an appropriate remote control device).
Culver does not appear to teach of a control member comprising a joystick.
Elnore is in the field of remote control devices and teaches of a control member comprising a joystick (¶0007, The remote controller may comprise a wireless joystick).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Culver to incorporate the teachings of Elnore of a control member comprising a joystick in order to use an input method that provides precise control.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calver in view of Iwata et al. (US 20140116737), hereinafter Iwata.
Regarding claim 20, Culver teaches of claim 1, and wherein the drive means is an electric motor (fig. 1, ¶0037, electric motor 14), further comprising a battery (fig. 3, ¶0037, battery 16).
Culver does not appear to teach of a display device capable of displaying a state of charge of the battery.
Iwata is in the field of battery displays and teaches of (fig. 1) a display device (display unit 43) capable of displaying a state of charge of the battery (¶0026, display unit 43 shows the battery remaining capacity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Culver to incorporate the teachings of Iwata of a display device capable of displaying a state of charge of the battery in order to inform the user if the battery should be charged before using the device.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOE TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-6pm EST.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/ZOE TAM TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights