DETAILED ACTION
The following Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 11/5/2025.
Status of the claims: Claims 1,4-6,8, 17 and 19-21 are pending in the application. Claims 23 and 25-27 are withdrawn.
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 1,4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulde et al US 2015/0299966 in view of Warren US 2009/0133977.
In regard to claim 1, with reference to Figure 3, Fulde et al ‘966 discloses an energy absorbing device for use with a fall protection system, the energy absorbing device comprising a body (10) having a first end (at 14) and a second end (at 16), and defining a central axis (in the center, through A, perpendicular to the body) therethrough, the body comprising: a first path (20, bottom) of reduced strength extending from the first end (at 14) to near the central axis of the body, the first path of reduced strength comprising a plurality of perforations (paragraph [0052]) extending through the body and disposed adjacent to each other, wherein the plurality of perforations is arranged in a first spiral shape (as shown in Figure 2), a second path (20, top) of reduced strength spaced apart from the first path of reduced strength, the second path of reduced strength extending from the second end of the body (at 16) to near the central axis of the body, the second path of reduced strength having a second spiral shape, wherein, upon application of a force above a threshold at the first end and the second end in opposing directions, the body (10) is configured to separate along the first path of reduced strength and the second path of reduced strength to absorb energy. (paragraph [0012][0052])
Fulde et al ‘966 fails to disclose wherein the second path of reduced strength is a groove that extends through the thickness of the body along the entirety of the second path of reduced strength from the second end of the body to near the central axis of the body.
Warren ‘977 discloses wherein the path of reduced strength is a groove (4, Fig. 1) that extends through the thickness of the body along the entirety of the second path of reduced strength from the second end of the body to near the central axis of the body. (paragraph [0028]{0051])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Fulde et al ‘966 to make the second path of reduced strength comprise a groove extending along the entirety of the path as taught by Warren ‘977 for the purpose of tuning the device to a specific energy absorption requirement. (paragraph [0056])
In regard to claim 4, Fulde et al ‘966 disclose each of the plurality of perforations (comprising 20) extends parallel to the central axis.
In regard to claim 5, Fulde et al ‘966 disclose wherein the first spiral shape is concentric with the second spiral shape. (shown in Figure 3)
In regard to claim 6, Fulde et al ‘966 disclose wherein the body (10) further comprises: a first hole (30) disposed near the central axis and aligned with the first path of reduced strength; and a second hole (30) disposed near the central axis and aligned with the second path of reduced strength.
In regard to claim 8, Fulde et al ‘966 disclose a first coupler (14) disposed on the first end of the body; and a second coupler (16) disposed on the second end of the body, wherein at least one of the first coupler and the second coupler is adapted to be connected to a load to apply the force in opposing directions at the first end and the second end.
Claims 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulde et al US 2015/0299966 in view of Warren US 2009/0133977 and Small US 5,799,760.
In regard to claim 17, Fulde et al ‘966 discloses a horizontal lifeline system comprising a safety line (rope, paragraph [0045]), an energy absorbing device operatively coupled to the safety line and comprising a body (10) having a first end (at 14) and a second end (at 16), and defining a central axis (in the center, through A, perpendicular to the body) therethrough, the body comprising: a first path (20, bottom) of reduced strength extending from the first end (at 14) to near the central axis of the body, the first path of reduced strength comprising a plurality of perforations (paragraph [0052]) extending through the body and disposed adjacent to each other, wherein the plurality of perforations is arranged in a first spiral shape (as shown in Figure 2), a second path (20, top) of reduced strength spaced apart from the first path of reduced strength, the second path of reduced strength extending from the second end (at 16) to near the central axis of the body, the second path of reduced strength having a second spiral shape, wherein, upon application of a force above a threshold at the first end and the second end in opposing directions, the body (10) is configured to separate along the first path of reduced strength and the second path of reduced strength to absorb energy. (paragraph [0012][0052])
Fulde et al ‘966 fails to explicitly disclose, at least a pair of anchor supports and the safety line extending between the pair of anchor supports, wherein the second path of reduced strength is a groove that extends through the thickness of the body along the entirety of the second path of reduced strength from the second end of the body to near the central axis of the body.
Small ‘760 discloses at least a pair of anchor supports (8) and the safety line (4) extending between the pair of anchor supports.
Warren ‘977 discloses wherein the path of reduced strength is a groove (4, Fig. 1) that extends through the thickness of the body along the entirety of the second path of reduced strength from the second end of the body to near the central axis of the body. (paragraph [0028]{0051])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Fulde et al ‘966 to include the anchor supports, with the safety line extending therebetween as taught by Small ‘760 as such is shown to be a known configuration for supporting a safety line. Anchor supports would allow the line to be installed and held securely.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Fulde et al ‘966 to make the second path of reduced strength comprise a groove extending along the entirety of the path as taught by Warren ‘977 for the purpose of tuning the device to a specific energy absorption requirement. (paragraph [0056])
In regard to claim 19, Fulde et al ‘966 disclose wherein the first spiral shape is concentric with the second spiral shape. (Figure 3)
In regard to claim 20, Fulde et al ‘966 disclose a first hole (30) disposed near the central axis and aligned with the first path of reduced strength and a second hole (30) disposed near the central axis and aligned with the second path of reduced strength.
In regard to claim 21, Fulde et al ‘966 disclose a first coupler (14) disposed on the first end of the body and a second coupler (16) disposed on the second end of the body, wherein at least one of the first coupler and the second coupler is adapted to be connected to a load to apply the force in opposing directions at the first end and the second end.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that one having ordinary skill in the art would not be led to modify the device of Fulde to include a second path of reduced strength in the form of a groove instead of the tearing of bridge material, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that a groove would fundamentally change the principle of operation of Fulde’s braking device which applicant claims is energy dissipation by tearing. While Fulde does disclose that the energy dissipation is achieved by tearing, the secondary reference of Warrant teaches that energy dissipation by tearing (using perforations or bridges) and unfurling (using a continuous groove) are both known alternatives and that tearing using bridges of various sizes can be used based on a desired energy absorption requirements. These two methods are clearly alternatives which help control energy absorption based on a user’s needs and as such, making one path of Fulde to be a groove as opposed to perforations would not change the principle of operation of the device of Fulde. Such a modification would be useful to help fine tune amount of energy absorbed.
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 JEREMY C RAMSEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3133. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 7:00-3:30.
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.
/JEREMY C RAMSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634