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 § 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tardiff (U.S. Patent No. 7,222,903) in view of Peterson (U.S. Patent No. 4,705,142).
Regarding claim 1, Tardiff discloses a load bar (10) comprising:
an outer pipe (12) having:
an outer pipe body with a cylindrical surface and a radial cross section (as shown in Figure 1 and disclosed in column 3, lines 11-17, the body of the outer pipe 12 is cylindrical and has a circular cross-section) disposed between a closed end section (16; this end section is closed when the elongate member 20 is inserted into said end section) and an open end section (18; this end section is opened when the elongate member 22 is separated from said end section); an outer pipe end loop (70) having a cross section (the cross section is defined at least by the rounded contact surface 78, shown in at least Figure 4), said outer pipe end loop being secured to the closed end section of the outer pipe (via elongate member 20); and a plurality of outer pipe hole pairs (40) disposed within the outer pipe body [FIG. 6], wherein each outer pipe hole of an outer pipe hole pair is coaxially aligned with the other outer pipe hole of said outer pipe hole pair (column 3, lines 21-23) and each outer pipe hole is orthogonal to the cylindrical surface of the outer pipe body [FIGS. 6, 7];
an inner pipe (22) having:
an inner pipe body with a cylindrical surface and a radial cross section (as shown in Figure 1 and disclosed in column 3, lines 11-17, the body of the inner pipe 22 is cylindrical and has a circular cross-section) disposed between a closed end section (at 29) and an open end section (opposing end, shown in Figure 5); an inner pipe end loop (72) having a cross section (the cross section is defined at least by the rounded contact surface 94), secured to the closed end section of the inner pipe [FIG. 5]; and a plurality of inner pipe hole pairs (42) disposed within the inner pipe body, wherein each inner pipe hole of an inner pipe hole pair is coaxially aligned with the other inner pipe hole of said inner pipe hole pair (column 3, lines 24-25) and each inner pipe hole is orthogonal to the cylindrical surface of the inner pipe body [FIGS. 5, 7], wherein the inner pipe body is configured to nest within the outer pipe body [FIG. 7], such that at least one outer pipe hole pair aligns coaxially with a corresponding inner pipe hole pair (column 3, lines 28-32) and wherein the cross section of the inner pipe end loop and the cross section of the outer pipe end loop are configured to be parallel with each other [FIG. 1]; and
a locking pin (44) having:
a cross section shape configured to be inserted through an outer pipe hole pair and a corresponding coaxially aligned inner pipe hole pair to secure the inner pipe to the outer pipe (column 3, lines 33-38) [FIGS. 3, 7],
wherein the load bar is configured to be installed within a harness adapter system (this limitation constitutes a recitation of intended use or a functional recitation, and the harness adapter system is not positively recited in the claim; the load bar 10 is capable of being used with a harness adapter system and therefore meets the requirements of the limitation).
Tardiff does not disclose that the end loops each have an enclosed circular cross section, or that the load bar is configured to have an adjustable length.
Nonetheless, Peterson discloses a load bar (62) having an outer pipe (78) with an outer pipe end loop (end loop defined by knob 86 at a first end of the load bar), said outer pipe end loop having an enclosed circular cross section (as shown in Figure 9, at least the hole 94 of the knob 86 defines an enclosed circular cross section); and an inner pipe (82) having an inner pipe end loop (knob 86 at the second end of the load bar) having an enclosed circular cross section [FIG. 9]; wherein the load bar is configured to have an adjustable length based upon a quantity of inner pipe hole pairs (81) of a plurality of inner pipe hole pairs (the plurality of hole pairs defined at holes 81 is shown in Figure 7) that are coaxially aligned with a corresponding outer pipe hole pair (80) of a plurality of outer pipe hole pairs (column 4, lines 19-21) [FIG. 7].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the load bar of Tardiff to have the enclosed circular end loops and length adjustability taught by Peterson, in order to provide a more secure connection between the end loops and the tensile members passing therethrough, so as to ensure reliable engagement and prevent disengagement, and to allow for greater versatility in the use of the load bar by enabling it to be adjusted to match the length of a specified object that is being carried.
Regarding claim 2, Tardiff discloses that each inner pipe hole of the plurality of inner pipe hole pairs and each outer pipe hole of the plurality of outer pipe hole pairs has a circular shape (as shown in Figures 5 and 6, each of the holes in the inner and outer pipes are circular).
Regarding claim 3, Tardiff discloses that the locking pin has a circle shaped cross section [FIG. 6].
Regarding claim 4, Tardiff discloses that the length of the load bar may be established through the insertion of the locking pin through a pair of inner pipe holes and a coaxially aligned pair of outer pipe holes [FIG. 7].
Regarding claim 5, Tardiff discloses that the cross sections of the inner pipe end loop and the outer pipe end loop are perpendicular with the radial cross section of the of the outer pipe body (the radial cross section of the outer pipe body defines an axis extending longitudinally along the length of the load bar 10; the cross section of the end loops are defined about an axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the load bar 10, as shown in Figure 4). As set forth with respect to claim 1 above, Peterson teaches the use of enclosed circular end loops.
Claims 6-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tardiff (U.S. Patent No. 7,222,903) in view of Knight (U.S. Patent No. 483,930).
Regarding claim 6, Tardiff discloses a load bar (10) comprising: a straight pipe body (pipe body defined by members 12, 20, and 22) disposed between two opposite end sections (at 70, 72), the straight pipe body having a radial cross section (column 3, lines 11-17) [FIG. 1]; and two end loops (70, 72), each end loop having a cross section and being disposed on a different end section of the load bar (radial cross sections are defined by the rounded contact surfaces 78, 94), wherein the cross sections of the two end loops are parallel with each other and perpendicular to the radial cross section of the straight pipe body (the radial cross section of the pipe body defines an axis extending longitudinally along the length of the load bar 10; the cross sections of the end loops are defined about an axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the load bar 10) [FIGS. 1, 4] and wherein the load bar is configured to be installed within a harness adapter system (this limitation constitutes a recitation of intended use or a functional recitation, and the harness adapter system is not positively recited in the claim; the load bar 10 is capable of being used with a harness adapter system and therefore meets the requirements of the limitation).
Tardiff does not disclose that the end loops each have an enclosed circular cross section, or that the end loops are monolithic.
Nonetheless, Knight discloses a load bar (D) having two end loops (d), each end loop having an enclosed circular cross section, wherein each end loop is monolithic (the enclosed circular cross section of the end loops d and their monolithic construction are shown in at least Figure 4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the load bar and end loops of Tardiff to have the enclosed circular cross section and monolithic construction taught by Knight, in order to prevent disengagement of the tensile members held by the end loops, and to provide a stronger load bar and end loop configuration by removing joints. It has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Tardiff discloses that the load bar is configured to separate carabiners disposed on a harness adapter connector portion of a harness adapter system by a fixed distance; wherein the separation of the carabiners by a fixed distance prevents a compressive force of a load held by the harness adapter system from being exerted on a lineman positioned between said carabiners (the harness adapter system, harness adapter connector portion, and carabiners are not positively recited; these limitations are therefore recitations of intended use or functional recitations; the load bar 10 is capable of being used on a harness adapter connector portion to separate carabiners by a fixed distance to prevent a compressive load on a lineman, and therefore meets the requirements of the limitation).
Regarding claim 9, Tardiff discloses the load bar, but does not disclose that it is formed as a singular monolithic piece.
Nonetheless, Knight discloses a load bar (D) formed as a singular monolithic piece [FIG. 4]. As set forth with respect to claim 6 above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the load bar of Tardiff to have the monolithic construction taught by Knight, in order to improve the strength and structural integrity of the load bar by removing joints. It has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Regarding claim 10, Tardiff discloses a load bar (10) comprising: two end loops (70, 72), each end loop having a cross section; and a pipe body (pipe body defined by members 12, 20, and 22) associated with and disposed between the two end loops [FIG. 1], wherein the load bar is configured to be installed within a harness adapter system (the harness adapter system is not positively recited in the claim; the load bar 10 is capable of being used with a harness adapter system and therefore meets the requirements of the limitation) and wherein a radial cross section of the pipe body is perpendicular with the cross sections of the two end loops (the radial cross section of the pipe body defines an axis extending longitudinally along the length of the load bar 10; the radial cross section of the end loops are defined about an axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the load bar 10) [FIGS. 1, 4].
Tardiff does not disclose that the end loops each have an enclosed circular cross section, or that the end loops are monolithic.
Nonetheless, Knight discloses a load bar (D) having two end loops (d), each end loop having an enclosed circular cross section defined by an outer perimeter of the corresponding end loop [FIG. 4], wherein each end loop is monolithic (the enclosed circular cross section of the end loops d and their monolithic construction are shown in at least Figure 4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the load bar and end loops of Tardiff to have the enclosed circular cross section and monolithic construction taught by Knight, in order to prevent disengagement of the tensile members held by the end loops, and to provide a stronger load bar and end loop configuration by removing joints. It has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Tardiff discloses that said load bar is configured to be installed within a harness adapter connector portion of a harness adapter system, wherein installation of the load bar is configured to prevent a supported load from compressing a lineman secured above said load (the harness adapter connector portion and the harness adapter system are not positively recited; the load bar 10 is capable of being installed within a harness adapter system to prevent compression of a lineman, and therefore meets the requirements of the limitation).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Tardiff discloses that the load bar is utilized in applications in which a held load below a lineman exceeds a safety limit of 500 lbs; and wherein the load bar is configured to allow a harness adapter system to safely support a lineman while carrying a load of up to 2,000 lbs (column 5, lines 19-41 discloses that the load bar is capable of supporting a compressive force of 28,000 lbs, which would therefore enable it to perform the recited function of supporting a held load of 500 or 2,000 lbs. below a lineman).
Regarding claim 15, Tardiff discloses that the pipe body has a circular cross section (column 3, lines 11-17).
Regarding claim 17, Tardiff discloses that said load bar is made of steel (column 4, lines 66-67).
Regarding claim 18, Tardiff discloses that the pipe body is comprised of an inner pipe body (22) nested within an outer pipe body (12), wherein one end loop is secured to the inner pipe body [FIG. 5] and the other end loop is secured to the outer piper body (via member 20), and wherein coaxially aligned hole pairs (42, 40) disposed within the inner pipe body and the outer pipe body are configured to accept a locking pin (44) to secure the inner pipe body to the outer pipe body [FIG. 7].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/25/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments to the claims and the newly applied prior art references (Peterson and Knight).
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 ABE L MASSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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.
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634