DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9,11-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0339391 A1 by Chant, hereinafter “Chant”, in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,259,217 to Stevenson, hereinafter “Stevenson”.
Regarding claim 1, Chant discloses a lightweight load bearing shackle (shackle shown in Fig. 2B; ¶[0029]) comprising:
a bow formed from a plurality of loops of fiber rope, wherein the plurality of loops are substantially aligned with one another and are secured together to form a single loop, wherein a first side of the single loop is secured to a second side of the single loop along a center portion of the single loop, wherein the first side and the second side of the single loop are not secured together at a first end and a second end so that the first side of the single loop and the second side of the single loop form a first receptacle at the first end and a second receptacle at the second end (bow 104 in Fig. 2B is formed as disclosed in ¶[0019] through [0030]);
a first boot located within the first receptacle, wherein the first boot includes a first threaded opening (upper boot eyelet 120 with threaded opening hole 125 in Fig. 2B is located within a receptacle of bow 104);
a second boot located within the second receptacle, wherein the second boot includes a second threaded opening (the lower boot eyelet 120 with threaded opening hole 125 in Fig. 2B is located within a receptacle of bow 104); and
a connection pin having a first threaded portion and second threaded portion separated by a non-threaded portion, and wherein the first threaded portion is to be threaded into the first threaded opening and the second threaded portion is to be threaded into the second threaded portion and the non-threaded portion is to be located therebetween to keep the first and second receptacles a distance equal to length of the non-threaded portion apart (¶[0031] and [0032] disclose pin casing 300 in Fig. 3 may be threaded on either end so that it can be threaded into threads within openings 125 of boot eyelets 120).
Chant does not disclose one of the threaded holes 125 is smaller than the other.
In the same field of load bearing shackles, Stevenson teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size one threaded eye of a shackle larger than the other threaded eye of the shackle. See page 1, column 2, line 1-12.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size one of Chant’s threaded eyelet openings larger than the other in the same way Stevenson teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Stevenson to the shackle of Chant would yield the predictable result of Chant’s shackle with one threaded eyelet opening being larger than the other as Stevenson teaches.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson renders the shackle of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Chant further discloses the subject matter of claim 2 verbatim in claim 2 on page 5.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson renders the shackle of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Chant further discloses the subject matter of claim 3 verbatim in claim 3 on page 5.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson renders the shackle of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Chant further discloses the subject matter of claim 4 verbatim in claim 4 on page 5.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson renders the shackle of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Chant further discloses the subject matter of claim 5 verbatim in claim 5 on page 5.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson renders the shackle of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Chant further discloses the subject matter of claim 6 verbatim in claim 6 on page 5.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson renders the shackle of claim 6 unpatentable as explained above. Chant further discloses the subject matter of claim 7 verbatim in claim 7 on page 5.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson renders the shackle of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Chant further discloses the subject matter of claim 8 verbatim in claim 8 on page 5.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson renders the shackle of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Chant further discloses the first boot and the second boot (boot eyelets 120 in Fig. 2B) have a channel formed on an exterior surface for receiving the first and the second receptacles respectively (Figs. 4A and 4B show eyelets 120 have channel groove 410 which receive the receptacles of bow 104 in Fig. 2B; ¶[0033]).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson renders the shackle of claim 9 unpatentable as explained above. Chant does not expressly disclose covers secured over boot eyelets 120 in Fig. 2B as claimed in claim 10. However, shackle 900 in Figs. 9A and 9B is shown using casings 800 in place of eyelets 120 covered with barrel eyelets 610. See paragraphs [0042] and [0043]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cover eyelets 120 shown in Fig. 2B with barrel-type covers such as barrel eyelets 610 to provide further support to the shackle as paragraph [0043] teaches.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson renders the shackle of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Chant further discloses the first boot and the second boot (boot eyelets 120 in Fig. 2B) have a channel formed on an exterior surface for receiving the first and the second receptacles respectively (Figs. 4A and 4B show eyelets 120 have channel groove 410 which receive the receptacles of bow 104 in Fig. 2B; ¶[0033]).
Chant does not expressly disclose channel grooves 410 include a plurality of arms sealing the channel and securing the first and the second receptacles in the respective first and the second boot. However, shackle 1000 in Figs. 10-12 is shown using split eyelets 1010 in place of eyelets 120. See paragraph [0045]. Split eyelet sides 1012 and 1014 each have a channel, 1100 and 1110, on exterior surface thereof which receive receptacle 520. The outer sidewalls of split eyelet sides 1012 and 1014 provide arms which seal channels 1100 and 1110 when they are secured together with screw 1016 and nut 1018 as shown in Fig. 12.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute split eyelets 1010 for eyelets 120 when making the prior art reference combination as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above such that the through opening in one split eyelet is larger than the through opening in the other split eyelet in the same way Stevenson teaches.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson renders the shackle of claim 11 unpatentable as explained above. Claim 12 recites the manner in which the shackle of claim 11 is intended to be assembled such that it does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from Chant’s disclosed shackle 1000 in Fig. 10. See M.P.E.P. 2114, II.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson renders the shackle of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Claim 13 recites a manner in which the shackle of claim 1 is intended to be employed and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from Chant’s disclosed shackle 1000 in Fig. 10. See M.P.E.P. 2114, II.
Regarding claim 14, Chant discloses a method of making a lightweight load bearing shackle, the method comprising:
wrapping a fiber rope into a plurality of loops (see ¶[0019]);
placing the plurality of loops into a sheathing (see ¶[0019]);
securing a first side of the sheathing to a second side of the sheathing along a center portion thereof, wherein the first side and the second side not secured together at a first end create a first receptacle and the first side and the second side not secured together at a second end create a second receptacle (see ¶[0019] and [0026]);
placing a first boot within the first receptacle so that the first receptacle is located within a first channel formed in an exterior of the first boot (a boot eyelet 120 is shown placed in one of the receptacles in Figs. 1A-1D with channel groove 410 shown in Figs. 4A and 4B engaging the receptacle; ¶[0033]);
placing a second boot within the second receptacle so that the second receptacle is located within a second channel formed in an exterior of the second boot (Figs. 1A-1D show a second boot eyelet 120 secured in a second receptacle at the opposite end of the bow); and
securing a pin having a first threaded portion and a second threaded portion separated by a non-threaded portion to a first threaded hole in the first boot and a second threaded hole in the second boot (¶[0031] and [0032] disclose pin casing 300 in Fig. 3 may be threaded on either end so that it can be threaded into threads within openings 125 of boot eyelets 120).
Chant does not disclose the last “wherein” clause amended into claim 14, namely:
wherein the securing the pin includes passing the first threaded portion of the pin through the second threaded portion in the second boot and screwing the first threaded portion into the first threaded hole and the second threaded portion into the second threaded hole.
In the same field of load bearing shackles, Stevenson teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a load bearing shackle by securing the pin (14 in Fig. 1) by passing the first threaded portion of the pin (17 in Fig. 1) through the second threaded portion (16 in Fig. 1) and screwing the first threaded portion into the first threaded hole (hole 12 with threads 15) and the second threaded portion (18 in Fig. 1) into the second threaded hole (hole 13 with threads 16).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size one of Chant’s boot eyelet openings 125 larger than the other in the same way Stevenson teaches to permit the pin to pass through both threaded openings of both eyelets 120. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Stevenson to the shackle of Chant would yield the predictable result of Chant’s shackle with one boot eyelet opening being larger than the other as Stevenson teaches.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson renders the shackle of claim 14 unpatentable as explained above. Chant does not expressly disclose placing covers over boot eyelets 120 in Fig. 2B as claimed in claim 15. However, shackle 900 in Figs. 9A and 9B is shown using casings 800 in place of eyelets 120 and covering them with barrel eyelets 610. See paragraphs [0042] and [0043]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cover eyelets 120 shown in Fig. 2B with barrel-type covers such as barrel eyelets 610 to provide further support to the shackle as paragraph [0043] teaches.
Regarding claim 18, Chant discloses a method of making a lightweight load bearing shackle in the embodiment shown in Figs. 6 through 9B (¶[0038]-[0044]) where the method comprises:
wrapping a fiber rope into a plurality of loops that pass through a first boot, a second boot and a sheathing located between the first boot and the second boot so as to form a single loop of fiber rope loops having the first boot at a first end and the second boot at a second end and the sheathing therebetween (Figs. 9A and 9B show fiber rope bow 510 has receptacles 520 which pass through boot barrel eyelets 610);
securing a first side of the sheathing to a second side of the sheathing along a center portion thereof (the center portion of 510 is secured as disclosed in ¶[0024]-[0026]); and
securing a pin through the boots (pin bolt 320 in Figs. 9A and 9B is secured through boot barrel eyelets 610 with nut 330).
The embodiment shown in Figs. 6 through 9B of Chant does not disclose pin 320 has first and second threaded portions separated by a non-threaded portion such that the threaded portions of the pin may be threadedly secured within threaded holes within boot barrel eyelets 610. However, the embodiment shown in Figs. 10-12 shows connecting pin 1020 with threaded areas 1024 separated by non-threaded area 1022 that screw into nuts 1030. Also, paragraphs [0031] and [0032] disclose pin casing 300 in Fig. 3 may be threaded on either end so that it can be threaded into threads within openings 125 of boot eyelets 120.
In the same field of load bearing shackles, Stevenson teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a load bearing shackle by securing the pin (14 in Fig. 1) by passing the first threaded portion of the pin (17 in Fig. 1) through the second threaded portion (16 in Fig. 1) and screwing the first threaded portion into the first threaded hole (hole 12 with threads 15) and the second threaded portion (18 in Fig. 1) into the second threaded hole (hole 13 with threads 16).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size one of Chant’s boot barrel eyelet openings larger than the other in the same way Stevenson teaches to permit the pin to pass through both threaded openings of both eyelets. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Stevenson to the shackle of Chant would yield the predictable result of Chant’s shackle with one boot barrel eyelet opening being larger than the other as Stevenson teaches.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson renders the shackle of claim 18 unpatentable as explained above. Stevenson further teaches securing the pin (14 in Fig. 1) by passing the first threaded portion of the pin (17 in Fig. 1) through the second threaded portion (16 in Fig. 1) and screwing the first threaded portion into the first threaded hole (hole 12 with threads 15) and the second threaded portion (18 in Fig. 1) into the second threaded hole (hole 13 with threads 16).
Regarding claim 20, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson renders the shackle of claim 18 unpatentable as explained above. Chant further discloses the first boot and the second boot include a secured channel around an exterior thereof and the fiber rope is routed therethrough. Fig. 9A shows a secured channel around an exterior of boot barrel eyelet 610 with the fiber rope routed therethrough. See “Exterior Secured Channel” annotation to Fig. 9A of Chant reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
1223
1276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chant in view of Stevenson and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,656,293 to Lowery, Sr., hereinafter “Lowery”.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson renders the shackle of claim 14 unpatentable as explained above. However, Chant does not disclose channels 410 include a plurality of arms extending from a first edge thereof to a second edge thereof to partially enclose the channels to secure the receptacles in the respective channels.
In the same field of shackles, Lowery teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a rope thimble (12 in Fig. 1) in a rope eye receptacle where the rope thimble has a channel formed on the exterior thereof and at least one arm which extends across the channel to secure the rope therein. See col. 1, line 59-64.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a plurality of arms across channel 410 of Chant’s eyelets 120 to secure bow 104 therein in the same way Lowery teaches rope thimble 12 having an arm which secures the rope in the channel which is arranged on an exterior surface thereof. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Lowery to the shackle of Chant would yield the predictable result of adding arms to Chant’s eyelets 120.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art reference combination of Chant in view of Stevenson and further in view of Lowery renders the shackle of claim 16 unpatentable as explained above. When adding the arms as taught by Lowery to Chant’s eyelets 120, the method would include locating the receptacles of bow 104 within channels 410 under the arms which extend thereover.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
World Intellectual Property Organization Publication No. WO 2020/070342 A1 by Wienke et al.; and
World Intellectual Property Organization Publication No. WO 2020/245771 A1 by Nicholson.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights