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 .
The amendment filled 11/05/2025 has been entered. Claims 2-5, 8-12 and 24 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 6-7, 13-14 and 17-23 have been amended. Claim 23 remain withdrawn, therefore, claims 1, 6-7, 13-22 remain pending in the application. Previous 35 USC § 112 rejections have been partially withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Abstract
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.
Note: The document in the file labeled “Abstract” contains WIPO information, drawings, and other material that does not constitute an abstract. A sperate Abstract sheet is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 recites “a plurality of stationary, permanent, self-powered sensors”; do these include the stationary, permanent, self-powered sensor established in claim 1?
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.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22 recites “the base unit is configured to receive data corresponding to a physical state of at least one component of a safety system to which a permanent lifeline is connected, from a plurality of sensors of different permanent vertical fall-protection safety systems”; the recitation above raises indefiniteness due to the unduly broad limitation of “different permanent vertical fall-protection safety systems”, since it includes systems that are not disclosed and hence the scope of any different permanent vertical fall-protection system cannot be determined, hence the claim is not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
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.
Claims 1-7, 13 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth, US (2016/0059055).
In regards to claim 1 Roth discloses:
A method of monitoring and reporting the condition of a permanent fall-protection safety system (as described in the Abstract and illustrated in figs. 1, 2A, B), the method comprising: using a stationary, permanent, self-powered sensor (deformation sensor as the indicator indicia as described in paragraph [0030] and [0031]) to obtain data corresponding to a physical state (gap distance due to plastic deformation as described in paragraph [0030]) of at least one component of the safety system (safety connector 200 including a static portion of a plastically deformable member as described in paragraph [0030]), to which component a permanent, elongate member (lanyard coupled to a fall-protection harness as described in paragraph [0019]) of the safety system is connected, wherein the at least one component and the stationary, permanent, self-powered sensor are at an elevated height relative to a base unit (receiving station, infrared receiver; inherently being at remote location per the signal being wirelessly communicated as described in paragraph [0031]); wirelessly transmitting the data to the base unit (data being the signal and wirelessly communicated as described in paragraph [0031]); processing the data to reach an indication of a change in the physical state of the at least one component of the safety system {as best understood; signal being processed for example by the strain gauge (or other type sensors) to indicate the strain induced into a member resulting from deformation or to generate the signal/alert as described in paragraph [0030], [0031], claim 10}, and, reporting the condition of the safety system based on the indication of the change in the physical state of the at least one component of the safety system (via the deformation sense module or fall detection module as described in paragraph [0030], [0031], claim 10);
wherein the safety system is a vertical fall-protection safety system (when travelling on a ladder as described in paragraph [0021] and claim 9),
wherein the permanent, elongate member of the safety system is a tensioned cable (safety lanyard attached to harness; tensioned at least during a fall),
wherein the at least one component of the safety system is a pivotally deflectable plate (deformation member 210; fig. 2A) of a top bracket of the safety system (in the case of the system being a ladder as described in paragraph [0021] and claim 9, in which case member 120 is a top bracket, which is inherently elevated since it is a fall protection and therefore is at an elevated height), to which pivotally deflectable plate of the top bracket the tensioned cable is connected (via aperture 215),
and
wherein the data corresponding to the physical state of at least one component of the safety system comprises data indicative of a gap width (“A proximity sensor, for example may obtain a measure of a gap distance between a dynamic portion and a static portion of a plastically deformable member”, “a deformation sensor may produce a signal in response to the measure of a gap distance” as described in paragraph [0030], [0031]; see above) between a rearward edge (surface of static end 245; fig. 2B) of the pivotally deflectable plate of the top bracket and a forward edge (surface of dynamic end 240; fig. 2B) of an abutment plate (240) of the top bracket (as described in claim 1; Ruth).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
363
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
646
644
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
508
414
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1 Roth does not explicitly disclose that the sensor is a self-powered sensor.
However, Roth also discloses “various types of electronic sensors may be used to perform some measure of deformation” (paragraph [0030] and [0031]). Examiner takes Official Notice that battery operated sensors are old and well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have utilized a battery-operated sensor for the predictable function with reasonable expectation of success i.e., allow placing the sensor in compact locations and to avoid running plugin wires from the sensor to the ground which can be costly, cumbersome and cause hazardous condition.
In regards to claim 6 Ruth discloses the data indicative of the gap width is obtained by optical monitoring of the gap (“optical signals may be generated by a deformation sense module”; paragraph [0031]).
In regards to claim 7 Ruth discloses the stationary, permanent, self-powered sensor comprises at least one strain gauge (“a strain gauge may indicate the strain induced into a member resulting from a deformation, for example”; paragraph [0030]) mounted on a neck (vertical stem of 210; as shown in fig. 2A, B) of the pivotally deflectable plate (210) of the top bracket (location of indictor 230, where the gap is to be indicted).
In regards to claim 13 Ruth discloses the stationary, permanent, self-powered sensor comprises a sensing element (inherent to sensors e.g. strain gauge) that obtains the data corresponding to the physical state of at least one component of the safety system (in response to a measure of a gap distance), and further comprises a battery (the sensor being battery operated as detailed under claim 1 rejection above). While Ruth discloses wireless signal communication, Ruth does not explicitly disclose a wireless radio transmitter, However, examiner takes Official Notice that BLE sensors are old and well-known in the art i.e., sensors that utilize Bluetooth communications, where Bluetooth waves are radio waves. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it useful to utilize a BLE sensor for the predictable function with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for the advantages of: low power consumption, cost-effectiveness, and ease of integration with different systems.
In regards to claim 20 Ruth does not explicitly disclose the sensor wirelessly transmits the data via short-range wireless radio transmission to a portable base unit that is located within 200 meters of the sensor. However, firstly, examiner takes Official Notice that short-range wireless radio transmission is old and well-known in the art, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it useful to utilize short-range wireless radio transmission for the predictable function with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for the advantages of: low power consumption, high data transfer rates, and flexibility. Secondly, it is provided that it would have been obvious to place the portable base unit within 200 meters of the sensor, because the rearrangement of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and placing portable base unit within 200 meters of the sensor would not alter the performance of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found that having the portable base unit within 200 meters of the sensor would (a) have the base unit in a range where no signal from the sensor would be assured, clear and prevent interceptions, and (b) have the worker monitoring the base unit in relative proximity to the worker at the elevated height to proceed with help if/when needed.
In regards to claim 21, examiner takes Official Notice that communication over cellular network is old and well-known in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize cellular network to communicate data to a fixed, non-portable base unit for the predictable function with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to allow for the data to be monitored by an employee at a headquarter location, where the work/safety can be monitored/observed/supervised for multiple locations remote from each other.
In regards to claim 22 Ruth discloses the base unit is configured to receive data corresponding to a physical state of at least one component of a safety system to which a permanent lifeline is connected, from a plurality of sensors of different safety systems {where the base unit of Ruth (the receiving station) is configured to receive data from a plurality of sensors of different safety systems, in the same manner it receives the data from the deformation sensor}.
Claims 14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruth as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Tichborne, US (2013/0269421).
In regards to claim 14, having provided the stationary, permanent, self- powered sensor with a BLE sensor (wireless radio transmitter) as detailed with regards to claim 13 above, it would be subsequently obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the receiving station with a wireless radio receiver, at least in order to receive the signal from the BLE sensor.
In regards to claim 14 Ruth does not disclose the stationary, permanent, self-powered sensor remains in a dormant state until the stationary, permanent, self- powered sensor receives a wireless radio signal from the base unit that instructs the stationary, permanent, self- powered sensor to obtain data corresponding to the physical state of at least one component.
Tichborne teaches sensor remains in a dormant state until the sensor receives a wireless radio signal from the base unit that instructs the sensor to obtain data corresponding to the physical state of at least one component (as described in paragraph [0069]; Tichborne).
PNG
media_image5.png
124
688
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the communication protocol of keeping the sensor dormant until a signal request query has been received, as taught by Tichborne onto the sensor of Ruth for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success and as motivated by Tichborne i.e., “so the power consumption of the sensor devices is further reduced” (paragraph [0069]; excerpt above).
In regards to claim 17 Ruth as modified by Tichborne above inherently teaches the stationary, permanent, self- powered sensor further comprises a data-storage unit {since the sensor remains dormant until a request for data is received; hence the readings obtained by the sensor is inherently stored (in a storage) until requested} and wherein the data that is obtained by the sensing element of the stationary, permanent, self- powered sensor is stored in the data-storage unit of the sensor until at least such time as the data is wirelessly transmitted to the base unit (where the sensor suggested by Tichborne would read on this limitation whether it stores the data until it is sent or the data remains in the storage until replaced with new data).
In regards to claim 18 Ruth as modified by Tichborne teaches the data is wirelessly transmitted to the base unit upon the stationary, permanent, self- powered sensor receiving a wireless radio signal from the base unit instructing the sensor to wirelessly transmit the data to the base unit (as described in paragraph [0069]; Tichborne).
In regards to claim 19 Ruth as modified by Tichborne teaches the data is wirelessly transmitted by the stationary, permanent, self- powered sensor on a specified periodic schedule (as described in paragraphs [0036] and [0078]; excerpt below).
PNG
media_image6.png
212
582
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
154
574
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruth as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kumar, US (11087209).
In regards to claim 15 Ruth does not disclose the stationary, permanent, self-powered sensor obtains data corresponding to the physical state of at least one component of the safety system to which the permanent lifeline is connected, periodically according to a pre-determined schedule comprising a data-taking frequency of no greater than once per minute.
Kumar teaches the stationary, permanent, self-powered sensor obtains data corresponding to the physical state of at least one component of the safety system to which the permanent lifeline is connected, periodically according to a pre-determined schedule comprising a data-taking frequency of no greater than once per minute.
PNG
media_image8.png
342
724
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the communication protocol of periodically according to a pre-determined schedule of frequency of no greater than once per minute, as taught by Kumar onto the sensor of Ruth for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., prevent continuous readings, to preserve the power consumption of the sensor.
With regards to claim 16 Ruth as modified by Kumar above do not teach data-taking frequency of at least once every 0.2 seconds. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the teach data-taking frequency to be at least once every 0.2 seconds, 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. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it useful to have the sensor take data at the frequency of at least once every 0.2 seconds, especially while a worker is actively working at an elevated height i.e., during the time where it is needed the most and closer monitoring would translate to higher safety precautions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Applicant argues “In relevant part, claim 1 requires the use of a "stationary, permanent" sensor. This is defined as meaning that the sensor is mounted in a "specific, unchanging location during use of the safety system"1. An ordinary artisan will see that the item on which Roth uses a sensor is a safety connector (200) that is "slidably coupled" to a guide rail”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that while the definition provided i.e., “specific, unchanging location” is accepted per the disclosure and description in the specification, although “during use of the safety system” is not part of the definition, however, it is provided that the sensor of Ruth is indeed “stationary” where at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation is it stationary with respect to safety connector 200 and/or base member 220.
Applicant argues “claim 1 requires that the item whose physical state is monitored by the sensor, is a top bracket of a vertical fall-protection safety system. A top bracket is depicted in exemplary embodiment as item 1020 in Fig. 1 of the application as filed. An ordinary artisan will understand from their background knowledge that Roth's connector 200 is not a top bracket ... The artisan will know as part of their background knowledge that a top bracket is an item that is fixed in place on a structure so that an upper end of an elongate entity (e.g. a cable or guide rail) can be attached to the top bracket, as discussed in the application as filed4. The artisan will also know that a traveler/connector”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that indeed member 120 can be considered a top bracket in the case of the system being used on a ladder as described in paragraph [0021] and claim 9 of Roth, in which case member 120 is a top bracket, where it is inherently elevated since it is a “fall protection system” and therefore is at an elevated height, hence “top bracket” at least with respect to bottom of structure i.e., the ladder.
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 SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
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.
/S.M.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634