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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 7 and 24 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 6, 15, 16, 21 and 33 have been amended. Claims 17-18 remain withdrawn, therefore, claims 1-6, 8-16, 19-23 and 25-33 remain pending in the application. Previous 35 USC § 112 rejections have been partially withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “caution device”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6, 16 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites “a processor in communication with the caution device; and an alarm in electrical communication with the processor, wherein the processor is programmed to initiate the alarm in response to actuation of the caution device”; this recitation constitutes new matter because there is no support tin the original disclosure that the “processor” conducted or is programmed for the recited functions. Claim 16 is rejected for similar language.
Claim 33 recites “the caution device utilizes no moving switch contacts”; this recitation also constitutes new matter because the specification only discloses “The operator protection system 24 provides simplicity over the prior art by providing a device that utilizes no moving switch contacts” in paragraph [0027]; hence there is not support for that the caution device not having moving contacts (where the term “device” does not inherently include all the devices in the invention). Also note the assembly as a whole includes several devices, hence the term “device” does not automatically point to the caution device”.
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 19, 31 and 32 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 19 recites “wherein the caution device comprises a proximity sensor concealed in the socket”. And claim 32 recites “the caution device comprises a limit switch concealed in the socket”; since the specification does not have the term “caution device”; it is best interpreted as being the the limit switch (or proximity sensor) being 82 as shown in fig. 4 (elected) and as described in paragraph [0030] of the specification; and the socket being 68 also shown in fig. 4; where they are illustrated at two opposite ends of cable 74; hence it is not clear what is being claimed in the recitations: “a proximity sensor concealed in the socket” and “limit switch concealed in the socket”. Claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim 31 depends from cancelled claim 7, therefore rendering it indefinite and currently unexaminable.
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 1-6, 8, 10-15 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings, US (2013/0313040) in view of Bagnaro, US (20130199854).
In regards to claim 1 Cummings discloses:
A mobile work platform assembly (fig. 2) comprising:
a platform (20 including floor 21; fig. 2) adapted to be mounted to a vehicle (11; fig. 1), sized to receive an operator thereupon (abstract);
a control panel (23) associated with the platform (as shown in fig. 2);
a caution device (26) associated with the platform (as shown in fig. 2);
a barrier member (trip cord 27) associated with the caution device (as shown in fig. 2) and configured to extend across the control panel (as shown in fig. 2) so that the barrier member is spaced apart from the control panel (as shown in fig. 2) so that a predetermined force upon the barrier member actuates the caution device (force due to weight of the operator “falls or collapses within the basket”; paragraph [0035] see highlighted excerpt below).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
260
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1 Cummings does not disclose a socket connected to a first end of the barrier member and a plug connected to the first end of the barrier member or the platform, sized to be received in the socket bore.
Bagnaro teaches a socket (14; fig. 1) connected to a first end of the barrier member (19 equivalent to 27 of Cummings) or the platform, with a bore (24) formed into the socket (as shown in fig. 1); and
a plug (12) connected to the first end of the barrier member (19 equivalent to 27 of Cummings) or the platform, sized to be received in the socket bore (fig. 1 and “receptacle 14 also has a second, female portion 24 that mates with a reduced diameter, male portion 64 of plunger 12”; as described in paragraph [0026]).
PNG
media_image3.png
504
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
212
586
media_image4.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 quick-disconnect mechanism of Bagnaro between the cord 27 and switch 26 of Cummings for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to prevent the tear of the cord if excessive force is applied e.g., if an operator falls, and/or to establish a distinct disconnect in the line that would require an intentional conscious decision to reconnect after hazardous/unsafe conditions have been eradicated. Note that the disconnect lanyard or strap of Bagnaro also triggers an alarm system as described in paragraphs [0028] & [0029]; one of ordinary skill in the art would glean over to references of other alarm setting flexible cords especially for workers at elevated heights such as oil rig workers of reference Bagnaro. Subsequently Cummings as modified by Bagnaro teaches wherein an end of the barrier member (in the manner how socket 14 is at an end of 19; fig. 1; Bagnaro) is removably connected to the caution device (disconnect between 14 and 12; per the modification above) and the platform so that the predetermined force upon the barrier member dislodges the end of the barrier member from the platform and actuates the caution device (“quick-disconnect switch 10 can be used to indicate an alarm condition by the separation of plunger 12 from receptacle 14” as described in paragraph [0029]; Bagnaro).
PNG
media_image5.png
540
684
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2 Cummings discloses the caution device comprises a sensor or switch (26) to detect contact of the barrier member.
In regards to claim 3 Cummings discloses the barrier member is flexible
(27 described as a cord).
In regards to claim 4 Cummings discloses the barrier member is sized to minimize visual obstruction of the control panel (as shown in fig. 2).
In regards to claim 5 Cummings discloses the barrier member is preloaded to permit limited flexibility of the barrier member upon receipt of a force that is less than the predetermined force (via adjustable tensioner 29).
In regards to claim 6 Cummings discloses a processor (fig. 3; as best understood; control box 83 may include a programmable processor; paragraph [0048]) in communication with the caution device; and an alarm (33) in electrical communication with the processor, wherein the processor is programmed to initiate the alarm in response to actuation of the caution device (“switch 26 is connected via electrical connector 31 and circuitry within the control 23 to the emergency stop 30 and is operable to cut-off the power supply from the emergency stop 30 which has the same effect as the emergency stop being activated”; as described in paragraph [0034]).
In regards to claim 8 Cummings discloses a frame (22) extending from the platform (as shown in fig. 2) and defining a platform perimeter (perimeter of bucket 20; as shown in fig. 2); and a pair of supports (28 and bracket carrying 26) extending from the frame into the platform perimeter, wherein the caution device and the barrier member are connected to the pair of supports (as shown in fig. 2).
In regards to claim 10 Cummings discloses the platform provides an operator workspace; and wherein a manual force upon the barrier member expands the operator workspace (up to and including enough force to trigger the switch depending on tension adjustment of tensioner 29; paragraph [0035]; as in the current invention; see indefiniteness above).
In regards to claim 11 Cummings discloses the caution device comprises a switch (26).
In regards to claim 12 Cummings discloses the caution device comprises a sensor (such as one of the sensors described in paragraph [0046]).
In regards to claim 13 Cummings discloses the caution device comprises a limit switch (26 limits the stretching of cord 27)
In regards to claim 14 Cummings discloses the caution device comprises a proximity sensor (such as one of the non-contact sensors described in paragraph [0046]).
In regards to claim 15 Cummings discloses the proximity sensor is concealed in a socket on a frame of the platform (fig. 6 as best understood).
In regards to claim 30 Cummings as modified by Bagnaro teaches upon the plug being removed from the socket, the barrier member actuates the caution device, and upon the plug being reinserted into the socket, the mobile work platform assembly returns to normal operation (as described in paragraph [0029] see highlighted excerpt below; Bagnaro).
PNG
media_image6.png
378
684
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 31 Cummings as modified by Bagnaro teaches upon reconnection of the barrier member to the caution device, the mobile work platform assembly returns to normal operation (via the reset feature as described in paragraph [0016]; Cummings).
In regards to claim 32 Cummings as modified by Bagnaro teaches the caution device comprises a limit switch concealed in the socket (what is described in paragraph [0029] which constitutes a switch; “electrical contact is completed between posts 46 and 48 through conductive, flat annulus 52. Thus, there is a completed electrical path between wires 18 and 20 in this condition”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings, US (2013/0313040) in view of Bagnaro, US (20130199854).
In regards to claim 16 Cummings discloses:
A land vehicle assembly (fig. 1) comprising:
a land vehicle (11);
a mobile work platform assembly (fig. 2) according to claim 1 (as detailed in rejection of claim 1 above); and
a processor (fig. 3; as best understood; control box 83 may include a programmable processor; paragraph [0048]); and
wherein the land vehicle supports the platform (as shown in fig. 1) and is in electrical communication with the processor (controls 23 for maneuvering basket 20; abstract), wherein the processor is programmed to:
control at least one mobile operation of the land vehicle (controls 23 for maneuvering basket 20; abstract), and
discontinue the at least one mobile operation of the land vehicle, or initiate an alarm, in response to actuation of the caution device (“switch 26 is connected via electrical connector 31 and circuitry within the control 23 to the emergency stop 30 and is operable to cut-off the power supply from the emergency stop 30 which has the same effect as the emergency stop being activated”; as described in paragraph [0034] see highlighted excerpt below).
PNG
media_image7.png
436
680
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings, US (2013/0313040) in view of Bagnaro, US (20130199854) in further view of McCown, US (6269606).
In regards to claim 19 Cummings discloses:
A mobile work platform assembly (fig. 2) comprising:
a platform (20 including floor 21; fig. 2) adapted to be mounted to a vehicle (11; fig. 1), wherein the platform provides an operator workspace sized to receive an operator thereupon (abstract);
a control panel (23) supported on the platform (as shown in fig. 2);
a frame (22) with guard rails (22; as shown in fig. 2) extending around a perimeter of the platform (as shown in fig. 2);
a pair of supports (28 and bracket carrying 26) extending from the frame into the platform perimeter (as shown in fig. 2);
a caution device (26) in electrical communication with the control panel (23; as shown in fig. 2), wherein the caution device comprises a proximity sensor (such as one of the non-contact sensors described in paragraph [0046]) concealed in the socket (as best understood; see indefiniteness above);
a flexible barrier member (trip cord 27) sized to minimize visual obstruction of the control panel (as shown in fig. 2), the flexible barrier member being connected to one of the pair of supports (as shown in fig. 2), and the flexible barrier member extending across the control panel (as shown in fig. 2), spaced apart from the control panel (as shown in fig. 2) and preloaded to permit limited flexibility (via adjustable tensioner 29);
an alarm (33) in electrical communication with the control panel (as described in paragraph [0036]), wherein the control panel is programmed to initiate the alarm in response to actuation of the caution device (as described in paragraph [0036] & [0037]).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
260
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
192
686
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 19 Cummings does not disclose a socket connected to one of the pair of supports, a proximity sensor concealed in a receptacle and a plug connected to an end of the flexible barrier member.
Bagnaro teaches a socket (14; fig. 1), with a bore (24) formed into the socket (as shown in fig. 1);
a plug (12) connected to an end of the flexible barrier member (19 equivalent to 27 of Cummings), sized to be removably received in the socket bore for detection by the proximity sensor so that removal of the plug actuates the caution device (as described in paragraph [0029] see highlighted excerpt below).
PNG
media_image3.png
504
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
212
586
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
540
684
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 quick-disconnect mechanism of Bagnaro between the cord 27 and switch 26 of Cummings for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to prevent the tear of the cord if excessive force is applied e.g., if an operator falls, and/or to establish a distinct disconnect in the line that would require an intentional conscious decision to reconnect after hazardous/unsafe conditions have been eradicated. Note that the disconnect lanyard or strap of Bagnaro also triggers an alarm system as described in paragraphs [0028] & [0029]; one of ordinary skill in the art would glean over to references of other alarm setting flexible cords especially for workers at elevated heights such as oil rig workers of reference Bagnaro. The modification above subsequently teaches that the socket be connected to one of the pair of supports (28 of Cummings).
In regards to claim 19 Cummings and Bagnaro do not teach a threaded stud connected to the flexible barrier member for adjustment of the flexible barrier member.
McCown teaches a threaded stud (32; fig. 4) connected to the flexible barrier member (10 equivalent to 27 of Cummings) for adjustment of the flexible barrier member (as it is tightened by threaded nut 36).
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 threaded stub arrangement taught by McCown onto the end of flexible member of Cummings for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for initial tension adjustment of cord 27, which then controls the sensitivity where the triggering of the cord occurs.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings, US (2013/0313040) in view of Bagnaro, US (20130199854).
In regards to claim 20 Cummings discloses:
A mobile work platform assembly (fig. 2) comprising:
a platform (20 including floor 21; fig. 2) adapted to be mounted to a vehicle (11; fig. 1), sized to receive an operator thereupon (abstract);
a control panel (23) supported on the platform (as shown in fig. 2);
a barrier member (trip cord 27) configured to extend across the control panel (as shown in fig. 2) so that the barrier member is spaced apart from the control panel (as shown in fig. 2), wherein the barrier member is further configured so that a predetermined force on the barrier member actuates a caution device (force due to weight of the operator “falls or collapses within the basket”; paragraph [0035] see highlighted excerpt below).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
260
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 20 Cummings does not disclose a socket connected to a first end of the barrier member and a plug connected to the first end of the barrier member or the platform, sized to be received in the socket bore.
Bagnaro teaches a socket (14; fig. 1) connected to a first end of the barrier member (19 equivalent to 27 of Cummings) or the platform, with a bore (24) formed into the socket (as shown in fig. 1); and
a plug (12) connected to the first end of the barrier member (19 equivalent to 27 of Cummings) or the platform, sized to be received in the socket bore (fig. 1 and “receptacle 14 also has a second, female portion 24 that mates with a reduced diameter, male portion 64 of plunger 12”; as described in paragraph [0026]).
PNG
media_image3.png
504
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
212
586
media_image4.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 quick-disconnect mechanism of Bagnaro between the cord 27 and switch 26 of Cummings for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to prevent the tear of the cord if excessive force is applied e.g., if an operator falls, and/or to establish a distinct disconnect in the line that would require an intentional conscious decision to reconnect after hazardous/unsafe conditions have been eradicated. Note that the disconnect lanyard or strap of Bagnaro also triggers an alarm system as described in paragraphs [0028] & [0029]; one of ordinary skill in the art would glean over to references of other alarm setting flexible cords especially for workers at elevated heights such as oil rig workers of reference Bagnaro.
PNG
media_image5.png
540
684
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings and Bagnaro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McCown, US (6269606).
In regards to claim 9 Cummings and Bagnaro do not teach a threaded stud connected to the flexible barrier member for adjustment of the flexible barrier member.
McCown teaches a threaded stud (32; fig. 4) connected to the flexible barrier member (10 equivalent to 27 of Cummings) for adjustment of the flexible barrier member (as it is tightened by threaded nut 36).
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 threaded stub arrangement taught by McCown onto the end of flexible member of Cummings for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for initial tension adjustment of cord 27, which then controls the sensitivity where the triggering of the cord occurs.
Claims 21-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings, US (2013/0313040) in view of Bagnaro, US (20130199854).
In regards to claim 21 Cummings discloses:
A mobile work platform assembly (fig. 2) comprising:
a platform (20 including floor 21; fig. 2) adapted to be mounted to a vehicle (11; fig. 1), sized to receive an operator thereupon (abstract);
a control panel (23) supported on the platform (as shown in fig. 2);
a caution device (26) associated with the platform (as shown in fig. 2); and
a barrier member (trip cord 27) associated with the caution device to extend across the control panel (as shown in fig. 2), and the barrier member being spaced apart from the control panel (as shown in fig. 2) so that a predetermined force upon the barrier member actuates the caution device (force due to weight of the operator “falls or collapses within the basket”; paragraph [0035] see highlighted excerpt below), a frame (22) extending from the platform (as shown in fig. 2) and defining a platform perimeter (perimeter of bucket 20; as shown in fig. 2); and a pair of supports (28 and bracket carrying 26) extending from the frame into the platform perimeter (NOTE: that weather the platform perimeter is considered to enclose the outer or inner surfaces of frame 22; both 28 and bracket carrying 26 include thickness of their width that indeed extend into or from the platform perimeter), wherein the barrier member is connected to the pair of supports (as shown in fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
260
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 21 Cummings does not disclose a predetermined force upon the barrier member disconnects an end of the barrier member.
Bagnaro teaches a predetermined force (force pulling on the lanyard as described in [0028] and “plunger is inserted into said receptacle and to remain frictionally mated until pulled apart”; claim 1) upon the barrier member disconnects an end of the barrier member (at the end of 19; 19 likened to the barrier; fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
504
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
212
586
media_image4.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 quick-disconnect mechanism of Bagnaro between the cord 27 and switch 26 of Cummings for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to prevent the tear of the cord if excessive force is applied e.g., if an operator falls, and/or to establish a distinct disconnect in the line that would require an intentional conscious decision to reconnect after hazardous/unsafe conditions have been eradicated. Note that the disconnect lanyard or strap of Bagnaro also triggers an alarm system as described in paragraphs [0028] & [0029]; one of ordinary skill in the art would glean over to references of other alarm setting flexible cords especially for workers at elevated heights such as oil rig workers of reference Bagnaro. Therefore, per the teachings above, Cummings as modified by Bagnaro teaches a predetermined force upon the barrier member disconnects an end of the barrier member from the platform, and actuates the caution device (triggers an alarm system as described in paragraphs [0028] & [0029]; Bagnaro).
PNG
media_image5.png
540
684
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 22 Cummings discloses the platform provides an operator workspace; and wherein a manual force upon the barrier member expands the operator workspace (up to and including enough force to trigger the switch depending on tension adjustment of tensioner 29; paragraph [0035]; as in the current invention; see indefiniteness above).
In regards to claim 23 Cummings discloses the barrier member has a pair of ends that are each oriented within the operator workspace (27 attached at both ends with operator workspace; fig. 2).
In regards to claim 25 Cummings discloses the platform provides an operator workspace which is reduced due to the pair of supports and the barrier member (operator space smaller at least due at the presence of 27; fig. 2).
In regards to claim 26 Cummings discloses wherein a manual force upon the barrier member expands the operator workspace (up to and including enough force to trigger the switch depending on tension adjustment of tensioner 29; paragraph [0035]; as in the current invention; see indefiniteness above).
Claims 27- 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings, US (2013/0313040) in view of Bagnaro, US (20130199854).
In regards to claim 27 Cummings discloses:
A land vehicle assembly (fig. 1) comprising:
a land vehicle (11); and
a mobile work platform assembly (fig. 2) according to claim 21 (as detailed in rejection of claim 21 above);
wherein the land vehicle supports the platform (as shown in fig. 1) and is in electrical communication with the control panel (controls 23 for maneuvering basket 20; abstract), wherein the control panel is programmed to:
control at least one mobile operation of the land vehicle (controls 23 for maneuvering basket 20; abstract), and
discontinue the at least one mobile operation of the land vehicle in response to receipt of a caution event signal (“switch 26 is connected via electrical connector 31 and circuitry within the control 23 to the emergency stop 30 and is operable to cut-off the power supply from the emergency stop 30 which has the same effect as the emergency stop being activated”; as described in paragraph [0034] see highlighted excerpt below).
PNG
media_image7.png
436
680
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 28 Cummings discloses an alarm (33) supported upon the platform in communication with the caution device to initiate the alarm in response to receipt of a caution event signal (“switch 26 is connected via electrical connector 31 and circuitry within the control 23 to the emergency stop 30 and is operable to cut-off the power supply from the emergency stop 30 which has the same effect as the emergency stop being activated”; as described in paragraph [0034] & [0036]).
In regards to claim 29 Cummings discloses the barrier member is movable relative to the control panel (where the cord being flexible or by adjusting the mount locations of 28 and 26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Applicant argues “according to Cummings et al., the switch 26 is activated by a tension load to the cord 27. (Paragraph [0039]). A quick-disconnect between the cord 27 and the switch 26 as proposed would result in a disconnection of the tension load, which would not activate the switch 26 of Cummings et al., nor maintain the activation of the switch 26 of Cummings et al. The proposed combination has no reasonable expectation of success because it renders Cummings et al., inoperable. Further, the proposed combination does not satisfy all of the claim limitations, because it would not actuate the caution switch as claimed because the tension is removed from a dislodged barrier member. There is no reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to render Cummings et al., inoperable by a combination with Bagnaro. Therefore, claim 1 is nonobvious over Cummings et al., in view of Bagnaro”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that firstly, it is routine skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art per the modification to have the switch 26 of Cummings adapt the operational manner of the quick connect taught by Bagnaro, where the disconnect would trigger the same signal otherwise triggered by the further increased tension. Also, note that the disconnect lanyard or strap of Bagnaro also triggers an alarm system as described in paragraphs [0028] & [0029]; one of ordinary skill in the art would glean over to references of other alarm setting flexible cords especially for workers at elevated heights such as oil rig workers of reference Bagnaro. Second, applicant did not specify what specifically is not being satisfied in his comment: “Further, the proposed combination does not satisfy all of the claim limitations, because it would not actuate the caution switch as claimed”.
Applicant argues “according to Cummings, the switch 26 is activated by a tension load to the cord 27. (Paragraph [0039]). A quick-disconnect between the cord 27 and the switch 26 as proposed, would result in a disconnection of the tension load, which would not activate the switch 26 of Cummings, nor maintain the activation of the switch 26 of Cummings. The proposed combination has no reasonable expectation of success because it renders Cummings inoperable”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that: Cummings discloses “The tension load is applied by the tensioned trip wire or cord 27 which extends across the front of the control 23 and is fixed to a support 28 mounted on the safety barrier 22 on the far side of the control 23. The cord 27 may be held in tension by an adjustable tensioner 29. The trip cord 27 must be positioned so as to allow normal operation of the control 23 but be tripped by an operator in the event that the operator is disabled and falls or collapses within the basket” in paragraph [0035], and further discloses “the auxiliary switch 26 is mounted on or within the control panel 23 and is operated by an alternative switch activation means 160. The contacts C1, C2 within the auxiliary switch 26 are not operated by a tension wire but are operated via a solenoid 27A (shown in chain dotted outline in FIG. 3) and the activation device 160 sends a signal to activate the solenoid” in paragraph [0042]; hence the crux/purpose of the invention of Cummings is for the normal operation of the aerial lift to be interrupted when “tripped by an operator in the event that the operator is disabled and falls or collapses within the basket”. Further on, this is accomplished by having contacts C1 and C2 operated via a solenoid 27A (as described in paragraph [0042]); hence as a person of ordinary skill in the art utilize the plug and socket arrangement of Bagnaro between the cord 27 and switch 26 of Cummings, it would subsequently result in that the contacts C1 and C2 being activated by the signal resulting from the disconnect i.e., , due to the separation which causes switch to indicate an alarm as described in paragraph [0029] Bagnaro rather than the tension wire. Cummings having “a” solution to operate/activate the contacts to indicate an alarm does not mean that having an alternative/substitute solution would destroy reference Cummings or render it inoperable. To reiterate, the invention of Cummings would operate perfectly fine when utilizing a different trigger mechanism.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to PTO-892 form for list of cited references.
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
