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 .
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 4 and 19 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.
Claim 4 recites “the rope”, which lacks antecedent basis in the respective claims. It is unclear if “the rope” indicates the soft shackles rope or rope midsection.
Claim 19 recites “wrapping the distal chain section around the obstacle in reversing the vehicle to drag the obstacle.” This sentence appears to be run-on sentences which makes it unclear to understand.
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 1-4, 6-8, 11-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sling Sets NPL, hereinafter NPL1, in view of SoftLink soft shackle NPL, hereinafter NPL2.
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 11, and 14-16, NPL1 discloses (claim 1) an off-road vehicle drag line (Fig. 18-1, Sling set) comprising a distal chain section (Chain), rope midsection (Nylon rope) and proximal shackle (Apex fitting); wherein (claim 7) the rope midsection has an eye splice (Eye) interfacing the shackle; wherein (claim 8) the rope midsection has an eye splice (Eye) interfacing the distal chain section; wherein (claim 11) the rope midsection comprises synthetic rope material (Nylon) which does not comprise thermoplastic; wherein (claim 14) the distal chain section has a fixed end and a free end, the free end terminating in a hook (Grab hook); wherein (claim 15) the hook has a gate (i.e. spring loaded keeper); wherein (claim 16) a ring (Coupling Link) interfaces the distal chain section and the rope midsection and wherein the hook attaches to the ring.
NPL1 does not disclose wherein (claim 1) the shackle has a lower breaking strain rating; wherein (claim 3) the shackle is a soft shackle; wherein (claim 4) the soft shackle comprises rope that forms a closed loop, the rope having s noose and a stopper knot at either end thereof.
NPL2 teaches wherein the shackle (Softlink Soft shackle) has a lower breaking strain rating; wherein the shackle is a soft shackle; wherein the soft shackle comprises rope that forms a closed loop, the rope having s noose and a stopper knot at either end thereof (Examiner annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
489
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner annotated Figure
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the above-identified soft shackle structure of NPL2 into the drag line of NPL1, for the advantage of preventing the destruction of expensive rope and chain components.
Regarding claim 2, NPL1 discloses wherein the distal chain section and the rope midsection having a breaking strain rating greater than 600kg (25,000lbs).
NPL1 does not disclose the shackle has a breaking strain rating less than 600kg.
NPL2 teaches the shackle has a breaking strain rating less than 600kg (200kg).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the breaking strain rating range of NPL1 and NPL2, for the advantage of protecting the assembly in case of failure. Thereinafter, the combination as explained above meets the limitation of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, NPL1 discloses the diameter of that of the rope midsection (diameter of 1 ¼ inches).
NPL1 does not disclose wherein the soft shackle has rope less than half the diameter.
NPL2 teaches wherein the soft shackle has rope less than half the diameter (Softlink Soft shackle has diameter of 3mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the diameter range of NPL1 and NPL2, for the advantage of protecting the assembly in case of failure. Thereinafter, the combination as explained above meets the limitation of Claim 6.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, NPL1 does not disclose wherein the rope midsection comprises synthetic rope materials having a melting point in excess of 300 °C; wherein the rope midsection comprises synthetic rope material comprising aromatic copolyamides.
However, the claimed limitations are inherent properties of a material; and it was well-within the skill of an ordinary practitioner to change material-types for an intended use. Thereafter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to form the component (i.e., rope) out of a suitable material, such as aromatic copolyamides, for the predictable result of optimizing the structural integrity of the components while minimizing spacing and costs, since it has been held to be well-within the general skill of a worker in the art to select from known materials on the basis of their suitability for the intended use.1
Regarding Claim 17, NPL1 teaches a shackle (Apex shackle) interfacing the rope midsection; but the shown embodiment of NPL1 does not explicitly disclose further comprising a disconnection shackle interfacing the distal chain section and the rope midsection. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art is readily expected to be able to move the apex shackle to between the distal chain and rope midsection; and further, it was commonly known that providing a disconnect between components provided the known benefit of easy disassembly, reassembly, and/or facilitated repair. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to move the apex fitting of NPL1 into the position of distal chain and rope midsection, for the expected advantage of facilitating easier assembly, disassembly, or repair.
The combination as mapped above suggests the remaining claimed limitation as follows (mapping to NPL1 unless otherwise noted):
19. A method of dragging an obstacle using the off-road vehicle drag line as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising attaching the shackle (Apex fitting) to an attachment point of an off-road vehicle (Ground Crew Duties, line16 “The hook-up man then places the apex fitting on the cargo hook”), wrapping the distal chain section around the obstacle (Sling Sets, lines 16 “The chain is uses as a loop”) in reversing the vehicle to drag the obstacle.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL1 and NPL2, in view of Najarro (US 20200130439).
NPL1 does not disclose wherein the shackle has a sleeve interfacing the rope midsection.
Najarro teaches wherein the shackle has a sleeve (Fig. 7, 24) interfacing the rope midsection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the sleeve structure of Najarro into the combination of NPL1 and NPL2, for the advantage of increasing the durability and protection from the material, such as dirt, for the shackle.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL 1 and NPL 2, in view of Costa (US 20120280523).
NPL 1 does not disclose wherein the rope midsection has a rope thimble interfacing the eye splice; wherein the rope midsection has a sleeve interfacing the shackle.
Costa teaches a rope that has a rope thimble interfacing the eye splice; wherein the rope has a sleeve (Figure 3C, 216 thimble, para. 42 lines 10-11, “The loop is protected by a thimble”, i.e. thimble acts like a sleeve for protection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the thimble and sleeve structure of Costa into the rope from the drag line of NPL1, for the advantage of increasing the durability and protection from the material, such as dirt, for the rope.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL 1 and NPL 2, in view of Mackenzie (US 5173998).
NPL1 does not disclose a chain hook at the fixed end, the chain hook configured to attach at any point along the distal chain section.
Mackenzie teaches a chain hook (10) at the fixed end, the chain hook configured to attach at any point along the distal chain section (Col. 2, lines 20-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the structure of hook of Mackenzie into the drag line of NPL1, for the advantage of easy adjustment of chain by attach and/or detach the hook.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL1 and NPL2, in view of Morton (US 7146922).
As was known from the combination above, NPL2 teaches replacing a shackle in a system. However, NPL1 does not disclose wherein the method further comprises exceeding the breaking strain of the shackle so that the shackle breaks.
Morton teaches that it was well-known and common in the art to exceed the breaking strain of a tow line (col. 5, lines 22-29).
Thereafter, it would have been common and obvious for a method of replacing a shackle, such as taught by NPL2, to follow from the common-and-ordinary occurrence of exceeding the breaking strength of a tow line, as was known in the art as evidenced by Morton, for the expected advantage of allowing common and ordinary repair.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUHYUNG SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3030. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/DUHYUNG SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 See discussions of MPEP 2144.07 regarding Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
