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 01/27/2026 has been entered. Claim 8 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 7 and 9 have been amended. Claims 10-20 remain withdrawn, therefore, claims 1-7 and 9 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dowie, US (2009/0223744).
In regards to claim 1 Dowie discloses:
A fall protection system (figs. 10) for a load in an elevated position (13; fig. 10; intended use), the fall protection system comprising at least two self-retracting lanyards (unnumbered extended lines attached to operators fig. 10, from lines 39, 41; fig. 6) configured to be removably coupled to the load, the at least two self-retracting lanyards associated with a single braking system (braking system 53, 55, 59, 65 and also including locking mechanism two teeth 73s and two springs 77s; figs.7, 9) that is configured to arrest movement of all of the at least two self-retracting lanyards (where locking device 35 shown in fig. 7 locks both spools 17 & 21 together as described in paragraph [0079]) when the single braking system mechanically senses an extension speed of just one of the at least two self-retracting lanyards has increased to a threshold brake speed (when the speed reaches a point to overcome spring 65 and moves toward the rear of the slotted apertures 63 and comes in contact with brake lining 61 as described in paragraph [0094]).
PNG
media_image1.png
262
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
656
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
578
696
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
418
581
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2 Dowie discloses the at least two self- retracting lanyards comprise respective lifelines (39, 41) wound on respective spools (17 and 19; fig. 6), and the respective spools are independently rotatable (when locking device is not activated) around a central axle (185) of the fall protection system (fig. 6).
In regards to claim 3 Dowie discloses the single braking system is operable to arrest movement of the respective spools when the single braking system mechanically senses the extension speed of just one of the at least two self-retracting lanyards has increased to the threshold brake speed (where the pull on either line attached to the operator as shown in fig. 10 rotates pulley 55 since they are connected via line 29).
In regards to claim 4 Dowie discloses the single braking system (braking system 53, 55, 59, 65 and also including locking mechanism two teeth 73s and two springs 77s; figs. 7, 9) comprises at least two brake assemblies respectively associated with the respective spools (a pair of one of the 73 and 77 and the other of the 73 and 77 each associated with each of the spools 17 and 21 respectively), and the at least two brake assemblies are rotatable around the central axle of the fall protection system (185) at a rotational speed equal to a fastest rotational speed of one of the respective spools that is rotating faster than any other of the respective spools {as described when “the wheel 55 (connected to the spools via top line 29; fig. 10) will overcome the biasing force and force the wheel 55 to move towards and engage the brake lining 61” as the speed of the fastest spool transfers to the wheel 55 ; paragraph [0094]}.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
Prosecution Insights