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 § 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(s) 1-2, 5-7, 14-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choate (US 6,779,630) in view of Hsieh (US 7,509,711).
Re: claims 1-2 and 5-7
Choate discloses:
Claim 1: A temporary cable horizontal lifeline (HLL) kit for fall protection comprising:
a wire cable (16; fig 1);
a ratchet tensioner (40, fig 6) with adjustable length webbing (42) that includes a first end portion (LH end) with a first carabiner and a second end portion (RH end) with a second carabiner (see NOTE below), the ratchet tensioner including a ratchet portion having first parallel support portions on either side of ratchet teeth portions (figure 6);
a first energy absorber (44, fig 1);
a first clamp and a second clamp (see below);
a first shackle and a second shackle (see below); and
a first end anchorage connector (LH 12, fig 1) and a second end anchorage connector (RH 12; fig 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
NOTE: While the ends of the webbing (42, fig 6) are provided with D-rings, and not carabiners, examiner refers to MPEP 2144.06, II Substituting Equivalents Known for the Same Purpose, 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose (see insert below), on the obviousness of selecting one known solution from a plurality of known solutions. In the instant case, any one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the ends of the webbing with connectors in the form of D-rings, like that of Choate, or other known equivalents such as carabiners, shackles or locking hooks.
2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose [R-08.2012]
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).
While Choate discloses the ratchet tensioner to include a ratchet portion having first parallel support portions on either side of ratchet teeth portions (figure 6) they do not disclose the ratchet tensioner to include a handle extension portion having second parallel support portions and angled supports disposed between the first parallel support portions and second parallel support portions.
However, Hsieh teaches:
the ratchet tensioner to include a ratchet portion having first parallel support portions on either side of ratchet teeth portions (see below), a handle extension portion (50, figure 1) having second parallel support portions (see below) and angled supports (see below) disposed between the first parallel support portions and second parallel support portions (see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
545
760
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to extend the ratchet tensioning handle of Choate to include the angled portions and second parallel portions as taught by Hsieh to create a longer and more open-ended handle, more easily gripped by users wearing work gloves, without having to try and lace gloved fingers through spaced supports near the ratchet teeth.
Re: Claim 2, Choate discloses the temporary cable HLL kit of claim 1, further comprising: a third carabiner and a fourth carabiner (equivalents of shackles 22, 26, see note above); and a stand-alone in-line tension indicator (43, fig 6). While tension indicators are generally known to have an indicator window, Choate does not depict one. However, Hsieh teaches a in-line tension indicator (110, figure 1) including an indicator window (92, figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to provide the tension indicator of Choate with an indicator window, as taught by Hsieh, so as to clearly display the necessary information to a user. With respect to if the in-line tension indicator of Choate is considered “stand-alone”, the examiner notes that that 43 is identified as its own component with respect to the shock absorber 44, and is clearly separate from the other components. Additionally, examiner refers to MPEP V. Making Portable, Integral, Separable, Adjustable or Continuous where the obviousness of combining and separating components is discussed. Combining (making integral) and separating (making separable) components each have their own benefits and drawbacks. As explained in the caselaw in the cited MPEP sections, if it were considered desirable to make a certain component removable, “for any reason” it would be obvious for that purpose. There are multiple reasons one might consider separating the tension indicator from the other components, including, readily removing for maintenance and/or replacement without having to replace a combination component that is otherwise still functional.
Choate further discloses:
Claim 5: The temporary cable HLL kit of claim 1, wherein the first end anchorage connector (LH 12, fig 1) and the second end anchorage connector (RH 12, fig 1) each comprise a web pass-through sling anchor or a metal stanchion (rebar stanchions 12; fig 1).
Claim 6: The temporary cable HLL kit of claim 5, wherein the ratchet tensioner, the adjustable length webbing (42), the first clamp, the second clamp, the first shackle and the second shackle each have a 5,000-pound minimum strength.
While Choate makes note that the webbing (42) has a breaking strength of 15,000 lbs. to 30,000 lbs. (col. 3, lines 9-11), they do not mentions the strength of the other components. However, Examiner notes that the OSHA requirement 1910.140(c)(7) and (c)(13)(i) which requires that all D-rings, carabiners and snap-hooks and anchorages have a minimum of 5,000 lb. breaking strength per employee attached. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the other connecting components, in addition to the already named webbing, with a breaking strength of at least 5,000 lbs. to meet known safety requirements.
Claim 7: The temporary cable HLL kit of claim 2, wherein the temporary cable HLL kit is configured to provide a complete temporary cable HLL system with or without the first end anchorage connector and the second end anchorage connector (figure 1).
Re: claims 14-15 and 19-20
Choate discloses:
Claim 14: A temporary cable horizontal lifeline (HLL) system for fall protection (fig 1) comprising:
a ratchet tensioner (40, figure 6) including a ratchet portion having first parallel support portions on either side of ratchet teeth portions (figure 6);
a first connection portion (14, figure 6) of a wire cable (20, figure 6) coupled to a first end (right-hand end of ratchet) of a ratchet tensioner (figure 6) that includes an adjustable length webbing (42, fig 6);
a first connection portion (right end portion of 44) of a first energy absorber (44) coupled to a second end (left-hand end of ratchet) of the ratchet tensioner (fig 6);
a first shackle (unnumbered shackle/yoke portion at left-hand end of 44) coupled to a second connection portion of the first energy absorber (fig 6);
a first end anchorage connector coupled to a second connection portion of the wire cable (fig 9); and
a second end anchorage connector (20 at opposing end of HLL, figure 1) coupled to the first shackle (fig 1).
While Choate discloses the ratchet tensioner to include a ratchet portion having first parallel support portions on either side of ratchet teeth portions (figure 6) they do not disclose the ratchet tensioner to include a handle extension portion having second parallel support portions and angled supports disposed between the first parallel support portions and second parallel support portions.
However, Hsieh teaches:
the ratchet tensioner to include a ratchet portion having first parallel support portions on either side of ratchet teeth portions (see below), a handle extension portion (50, figure 1) having second parallel support portions (see below) and angled supports (see below) disposed between the first parallel support portions and second parallel support portions (see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
545
760
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to extend the ratchet tensioning handle of Choate to include the angled portions and second parallel portions as taught by Hsieh to create a longer and more open-ended handle, more easily gripped by users wearing work gloves, without having to try and lace gloved fingers through spaced supports near the ratchet teeth.
Re: Claim 15, Choate discloses further comprising: a stand-alone in-line tension indicator (43, figure 6) coupled between the second end of the ratchet tensioner (left-hand end of ratchet) and the first energy absorber (44, figure 6). While tension indicators are generally known to have an indicator window, Choate does not depict one. However, Hsieh teaches an in-line tension indicator (110, figure 1) including an indicator window (92, figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to provide the tension indicator of Choate with an indicator window, as taught by Hsieh, so as to clearly display the necessary information to a user. With respect to if the in-line tension indicator of Choate is considered “stand-alone”, the examiner notes that that 43 is identified as its own component with respect to the shock absorber 44, and is clearly separate from the other components. Additionally, examiner refers to MPEP V. Making Portable, Integral, Separable, Adjustable or Continuous where the obviousness of combining and separating components is discussed. Combining (making integral) and separating (making separable) components each have their own benefits and drawbacks. As explained in the caselaw in the cited MPEP sections, if it were considered desirable to make a certain component removable, “for any reason” it would be obvious for that purpose. There are multiple reasons one might consider separating the tension indicator from the other components, including, readily removing for maintenance and/or replacement without having to replace a combination component that is otherwise still functional.
Re: Claim 19, while Choate does not mention the strength of the ratchet tensioner, examiner notes that the OSHA requirement 1910.140(c)(7) and (c)(13)(i) requires that all fall arrest and safety lines connections have a minimum of 5,000 lb. breaking strength per employee attached. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the ratchet tensioner with a breaking strength of at least 5,000 lbs. to meet known safety requirements.
Claim 20: The system of claim 14, wherein the system is configured to provide a complete temporary cable HLL system with or without the first end anchorage connector and the second end anchorage connector (fig 1).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choate in view of Hsiech as applied to claims 1-2 and 14-15 above, and further in view of Small (US 5,799,769). Choate does not disclose a second energy absorber, wherein the first energy absorber and the second energy absorber are each one of a coil energy absorber or a shock pack energy absorber.
However, Small teaches:
Claim 3: further comprising a second energy absorber (fig 3 shows two energy absorbers 10, and col. 5, line 67[Wingdings font/0xE0]col. 6, line 4 describes how the arrangement figure 1 may also be constructed with an energy absorber 10 at either end of the horizontal lifeline).
Claim 4: The temporary cable HLL kit of claim 3, wherein the first energy absorber (LH 10) and the second energy absorber (RH 10) are each one of a coil energy absorber (figure 4) or a shock pack energy absorber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the horizontal lifeline of Choate with a first and second coil energy absorber so as to greatly reduce the forces in the event of a fall, dampening the impact on a user and supporting connections thereto, reducing chances of injury and equipment failure.
Claims 16 and 17: further comprising: a second energy absorber (10) coupled between the first connection portion of the wire cable and the first end of the ratchet tensioner (fig 3 shows two energy absorbers 10, and col. 5, line 67[Wingdings font/0xE0]col. 6, line 4 describes how the arrangement figure 1 may also be constructed with an energy absorber 10 at either end of the horizontal lifeline).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the horizontal lifeline of Patton with a first and second coil energy absorber so as to greatly reduce the forces in the event of a fall, dampening the impact on a user and supporting connections thereto, reducing chances of injury and equipment failure.
Re: Claim 18 Choate in view of Smalls discloses: wherein the first energy absorber and the second energy absorber are each a coil energy absorber (Small, 10, fig 4), the first end anchorage connector (Choate figure 9) and the second end anchorage connector (Choate, opposing end connections, fig 1) each comprise a web pass-through sling anchor or a metal stanchion (figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that neither of the primary reference is applied, Choate and Patton, disclose the newly added limitations with respect to the ratchet tensioner, specifically the first and second parallel portions and the angle supports disposed therebetween. However, in light of the limitations, the prior art applied is now Choate in view of Hsieh, with secondary reference teaching the newly claimed limitations with respect to the ratchet tensioner. As explained in the rejections above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the ratchet tensioning handle of Choate to include the angled portions and second parallel portions as taught by Hsieh to create a longer and more open-ended handle, more easily gripped by users wearing work gloves, without having to try and lace gloved fingers through spaced supports near the ratchet teeth.
With respect to if the in-line tension indicator of Choate is considered “stand-alone”, the examiner notes that that 43 is identified as its own component with respect to the shock absorber 44, and is clearly separate from the other components. Additionally, examiner refers to MPEP V. Making Portable, Integral, Separable, Adjustable or Continuous where the obviousness of combining and separating components is discussed. Combining (making integral) and separating (making separable) components each have their own benefits and drawbacks. As explained in the caselaw in the cited MPEP sections, if it were considered desirable to make a certain component removable, “for any reason” it would be obvious for that purpose. There are multiple reasons one might consider separating the tension indicator from the other components, including, readily removing for maintenance and/or replacement without having to replace a combination component that is otherwise still functional.
For at least these reasons, the arguments are not found persuasive and the claims remain rejected as advanced above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
COLLEEN M. CHAVCHAVADZE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights