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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,583,592 (Ijadi-Maghsoodi) in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,809,334 (Beurer et al.). Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,583,592 (Ijadi-Maghsoodi) teaches an almost identical rescue hoist with the only difference being the recitation of “a cable… exiting the cable drum at a top of the cable drum” in both independent claims 1 and 11 of the current application. However, at least U.S. Patent No. 3,809,334 (Beurer et al.) teaches it being well known for a cable (34) to exit from the top of a drum (24), (Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify U.S. Patent No. 12,583,592 (Ijadi-Maghsoodi) to have the cable… exiting the cable drum at a top of the cable drum as taught by U.S. Patent No. 3,809,334 (Beurer et al.) as it would have been obvious to try to have a cable wound around the drum in a clockwise direction versus a counter clock-wise direction.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 10-14, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 2,335,568 (Lock).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 6 and 10, Lock teaches: Claim 1 - a rescue hoist, comprising: a housing (14) mountable to an airframe; a cable drum (10) rotatably mounted in the housing (14); a traction sheave (21) rotatably mounted in the housing (14), the traction sheave (14) positioned to one side of the cable drum (10); a cable (19) wrapped around the cable drum (10), exiting the cable drum (10) at a top of the cable drum (10) and in a substantially lateral direction, wrapping over the traction sheave (21), and exiting the housing (14) under the traction sheave (21); and a hook (23) mounted to one end of the cable (19), the hook (23) positioned outside of the housing (14) and under the traction sheave (21), (Figures 1-4); Claim 2 – wherein a rotational axis of the traction sheave (21) is positioned higher in the housing (14) than a rotational axis of the cable drum (10), (Figures 1-4); Claim 3 – wherein the cable (19) is maintained in contact with about one-quarter of a circumference of the traction sheave (21), (Figures 1-4); Claim 6 – wherein the cable drum (10) and the traction sheave (21) are coupled for synchronous rotation, (Figures 1-4); Claim 10 - wherein the housing (14) is configured to mount under a wing of a rotorcraft, (Figures 1-4).
Regarding Claims 11-14, 17 and 20, Lock teaches: Claim 11 - a rescue hoist, comprising: a housing (14) defining a main portion and a lateral portion; a cable drum (10) rotatably mounted in the main portion; a traction sheave (21) rotatably mounted in the lateral portion; a cable (19) wrapped around the cable drum (10), exiting the cable drum (10) at a top of the cable drum (10) and in a substantially lateral direction, wrapping over the traction sheave (21), and exiting the housing (14) under the traction sheave (21); and a hook (23) mounted to one end of the cable (19), the hook (23) positioned outside of the housing (14) and under the lateral portion, (Figures 1-4); Claim 12 - wherein the cable (19) is wrapped around the cable drum (10) and wrapped over the traction sheave (21) in the same direction, (Figures 1-4); Claim 13 – wherein a rotational axis of the traction sheave (21) is positioned higher in the housing (14) than a rotational axis of the cable drum (10), (Figures 1-4); Claim 14 – wherein the cable (19) is maintained in contact with about one-quarter of a circumference of the traction sheave (21), (Figures 1-4); Claim 17 – wherein the cable drum (10) and the traction sheave (21) are coupled for synchronous rotation, (Figures 1-4); Claim 20 - wherein the housing (14) is configured to mount under a wing of a rotorcraft, (Figures 1-4).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6-13, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0181177 (Moll) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,261,065 (Shin).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-10, Moll teaches: Claim 1 - a rescue hoist, comprising: a housing (5) mountable to an airframe; a cable drum (6a) rotatably mounted in the housing (5); a traction sheave (4b) rotatably mounted in the housing (5), the traction sheave (4b) positioned to one side of the cable drum (6a); a cable (2) wrapped around the cable drum (6a), and exiting the housing (5) under the traction sheave (4b); and a hook (7) mounted to one end of the cable (2), the hook (7) positioned outside of the housing (5) and under the traction sheave (4b), (Figures 1-3); Claim 2 – wherein a rotational axis of the traction sheave (4b) is positioned higher in the housing (5) than a rotational axis of the cable drum (6a), (Figures 1-3); Claim 4 - at least one pinch roller (10) rotatably mounted in the housing (5) and configured to press the cable (2) against the traction sheave (4b), (Figures 1-3); Claim 6 – wherein the cable drum (6a) and the traction sheave (4b) are coupled for synchronous rotation, (Figures 1-3); Claim 7 – wherein: the housing (5) has a top, a bottom, opposing ends, and opposing lateral sides; the traction sheave (4b) is positioned between the cable drum (6a) and one of the opposing lateral sides; and a length of the housing (5) is greater than a height of the housing (5), (Figures 1-3); Claim 8 – a medial extension provided on one of the opposing lateral sides of the housing (5), wherein the traction sheave (4b) is disposed, at least partly, in the medial extension, and wherein the cable (2) exits the housing (5) through an opening formed in a bottom of the medial extension, (Figures 1-3); Claim 9 – mounting hardware (8) positioned on the top of the housing (5) for mounting the housing (5) to the airframe, (Figures 1-3); Claim 10 - wherein the housing (5) is configured to mount under a wing of a rotorcraft, (Figures 1-3).
Moll does not teach: the cable exiting the cable drum at a top of the cable drum and in a substantially lateral direction (Claim 1); and wherein the cable is maintained in contact with about one-quarter of a circumference of the traction sheave (Claim 3). However, Shin teaches: Claims 1 and 3 – a rescue hoist comprising: a cable (1) exiting a cable drum (101) at a top of the cable drum (101) and in a substantially lateral direction, and wherein the cable (1) is maintained in contact with about one-quarter of a circumference of a traction sheave (103), (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rescue hoist of Moll to have the cable exiting the cable drum at a top of the cable drum and in a substantially lateral direction (Claim 1); and wherein the cable is maintained in contact with about one-quarter of a circumference of the traction sheave (Claim 3) as taught by Shin as it represents the simple substitution of one known element (the cable exiting the top of the cable drum as seen in Shin) for another (the cable exiting the bottom of the cable drum as seen in Moll) to obtain the predictable result of having a well-known configuration of a cable drum and a traction sheave.
Regarding Claims 11-13, 15, and 17-20, Moll teaches: Claim 11 - a rescue hoist, comprising: a housing (5) defining a main portion and a lateral portion; a cable drum (6a) rotatably mounted in the main portion; a traction sheave (4b) rotatably mounted in the lateral portion; a cable (2) wrapped around the cable drum (6a), wrapping over the traction sheave (4b), and exiting the housing (5) under the traction sheave (4b); and a hook (7) mounted to one end of the cable (2), the hook (7) positioned outside of the housing (5) and under the lateral portion, (Figures 1-3); Claim 12 - wherein the cable (2) is wrapped around the cable drum (6a) and wrapped over the traction sheave (4b) in the same direction, (Figures 1-3); Claim 13 – wherein a rotational axis of the traction sheave (4b) is positioned higher in the housing (5) than a rotational axis of the cable drum (6a), (Figures 1-3); Claim 15 - at least one pinch roller (10) rotatably mounted in the lateral portion and configured to press the cable (2) against the traction sheave (4b), (Figures 1-3); Claim 17 – wherein the cable drum (6a) and the traction sheave (4b) are coupled for synchronous rotation, (Figures 1-3); Claim 18 – wherein: the main portion has a top, a bottom, opposing ends, and opposing lateral sides; and a length of the main portion is greater than a height of the main portion, (Figures 1-3); Claim 19 – mounting hardware (8) positioned on the top of the housing (5) for mounting the housing (5) to the airframe, (Figures 1-3); Claim 20 - wherein the housing (5) is configured to mount under a wing of a rotorcraft, (Figures 1-3).
Moll does not teach: the cable exiting the cable drum at a top of the cable drum and in a substantially lateral direction (Claim 11); and wherein the cable is maintained in contact with about one-quarter of a circumference of the traction sheave (Claim 14). However, Shin teaches: Claims 11 and 14 – a rescue hoist comprising: a cable (1) exiting a cable drum (101) at a top of the cable drum (101) and in a substantially lateral direction, and wherein the cable (1) is maintained in contact with about one-quarter of a circumference of the traction sheave (103), (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rescue hoist of Moll to have the cable exiting the cable drum at a top of the cable drum and in a substantially lateral direction (Claim 11); and wherein the cable is maintained in contact with about one-quarter of a circumference of the traction sheave (Claim 14) as taught by Shin as it represents the simple substitution of one known element (the cable exiting the top of the cable drum as seen in Shin) for another (the cable exiting the bottom of the cable drum as seen in Moll) to obtain the predictable result of having a well-known configuration of a cable drum and a traction sheave.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,335,568 (Lock) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,723,602 (Maghsoodi).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Lock teaches the rescue hoist as described as described above, but does not teach: wherein each of the traction sheave and the at least one pinch roller defines a circumscribing cable groove in a plane transverse to its rotational axis (Claims 5 and 16). However, Maghsoodi teaches: Claims 5 and 16 – a rescue hoist including each of a traction sheave (38) and at least one pinch (29) roller defines a circumscribing cable groove in a plane transverse to its rotational axis, (Figures 1-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rescue hoist of Lock to have wherein each of the traction sheave and the at least one pinch roller defines a circumscribing cable groove in a plane transverse to its rotational axis (Claims 5 and 16) as taught by Maghsoodi as it represents the simple substitution of one known element (the grooved traction sheave and pinch roller of Maghsoodi) for another (the sheave and cable drum of Lock) to obtain the predictable result of having a cable which is easy to find and manufacture.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0181177 (Moll) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,261,065 (Shin), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,723,602 (Maghsoodi).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Moll as modified by Shin teaches the rescue hoist as described as described above, but does not teach: wherein each of the traction sheave and the at least one pinch roller defines a circumscribing cable groove in a plane transverse to its rotational axis (Claims 5 and 16). However, Maghsoodi teaches: Claims 5 and 16 – a rescue hoist including each of a traction sheave (38) and at least one pinch (29) roller defines a circumscribing cable groove in a plane transverse to its rotational axis, (Figures 1-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rescue hoist of Moll as modified by Shin to have wherein each of the traction sheave and the at least one pinch roller defines a circumscribing cable groove in a plane transverse to its rotational axis (Claims 5 and 16) as taught by Maghsoodi as it represents the simple substitution of one known element (the grooved traction sheave and pinch roller of Maghsoodi) for another (the geared cable and sheave of Moll as modified by Shin) to obtain the predictable result of having a cable which is easy to find and manufacture.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 271467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
