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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed September 23, 2025. The application has been updated accordingly.
Drawings
The drawings were received on September 23, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 2, 8 and 11-16 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.
Claims 2 and 8 both recite the limitation "the pivot.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a first through configured to accommodate a slip sleeve forming an elongate opening via which a lifeline tower is slidably received” which renders the claim indefinite because the use of “configured to” indicates functional language; however, the use of “forming an elongate opening via which a lifeline tower is slidably received” is more than functional language and makes it unclear if the lifeline tower is being positively claimed. For the purpose of this Office Action the examiner assumes the applicant meant for the language to be functional.
Claims 12-16 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 11.
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rogers (2016/0281375).
Rogers discloses:
Claim 11 as best understood by the examiner: A multi-piece mount plate for a fall protection system comprising:
a first wing (Fig. 8; 48), the first wing comprising:
a first body portion (Fig. 8; 49);
a first flange (Fig. 8; 51) perpendicular to the first body portion (Fig. 8; the flange is perpendicular to the body portion); and
an indexing protrusion extending upwardly from the top surface of the first body portion (Fig. 8; 52);
a second wing (Fig. 1; 8), the second wing comprising:
a second body portion (Fig. 1; see detail);
a second flange (Fig. 1; see detail) perpendicular to the second body portion (Fig. 1; the flange is perpendicular to the body portion); and
an indexing hole (Fig. 3; 12) configured to receive the indexing protrusion (Para. [0034]); and
a first through-hole (Fig. 3; where 2 passes through 8) configured to accommodate a slip sleeve forming an elongate opening via which a lifeline tower is slidably received (Fig. 3; 2 is slidably received in 8 and 8 is capable of accommodating a slip sleeve).
PNG
media_image1.png
599
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 12: The multi-piece mount plate of claim 11, wherein the slip sleeve is coaxial with the first through-hole (Fig. 3; 2 is coaxial with the through-hole in 8).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rogers (2016/0281375).
Rogers discloses:
Claim 13: The multi-piece mount plate of claim 11, wherein the indexing protrusion (Fig. 8; 52) is four-cornered (Fig. 6; see detail), but fails to disclose the indexing hole as four-cornered.
PNG
media_image2.png
523
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Rogers fails to disclose a four-cornered indexing hole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to change the shape of the indexing hole to create a matching indexing segment and provide additional stability to the joint when keyed together, since it has been held that changes in shape have no patentable significance absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV) (B) – Changes in Shape.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetesnik (2004/0195041).
Vetesnik discloses:
Claim 1: A mount plate for a fall protection system comprising:
a first wing (Fig. 1; 25), the first wing comprising a first body portion (Fig. 1; attached to 23) and a first flange (Fig. 1; extending from the body portion and including 28);
a second wing (Fig. 1; 26), the second wing comprising a second body portion (Fig. 1; attached to 23) and a second flange (Fig. 1; extending from the body portion and including 28);
a swivel (Fig.1; Para. [0054]) pivotably connecting the first body portion to the second body portion (Fig. 1; 25 and 26, Para. [0054]); and
a through-hole (Fig. 1; where 29 passes through 25 and 26) configured to accommodate a slip sleeve (Fig. 1; 29) of a lifeline tower.
While Vetesnik fails to disclose flange portions perpendicular to the body portions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to change the shape of the wings to have the flange and body portions perpendicular to one another in order to reduce how far out the flange portions project to prevent segments of lifeline from getting snagged on them, since it has been held that changes in shape have no patentable significance absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV) (B) – Changes in Shape.
Claim 2: The mount plate of claim 1, wherein the through-hole passes through the pivot (Fig. 1; where 29 passes through 25 and 26, Para. [0054]).
Claim 3: The mount plate of claim 1, wherein one or more of the first flange or the second flange comprises a mounting hole (Fig. 1; 28).
Claim 4: The mount plate of claim 1, wherein the first wing and the second wing are free to pivot such that the first flange and second flange are at a 90-degree angle (Para. [0054]).
Claim 5: The mount plate of claim 4, wherein the first wing and second wing are free to pivot such that the first flange and second flange are at a 180-degree angle (Para. [0054]).
Claim 6: The mount plate of claim 5, wherein the first wing and second wing are free to pivot such that the first flange and second flange are at a 270-degree angle (Para. [0054]).
Claim 8: The mount plate of claim 1, wherein an axis of rotation of the pivot overlaps a central axis of the slip sleeve (Fig. 1; the pivot of the body portions central axis is located where 29 passes through 25 and 26).
Claim 9: The mount plate of claim 1, wherein an axis of rotation of the pivot is parallel with, but separate from, a central axis of the slip sleeve (Fig. 1; the pivot of the body portions is parallel with but separate from the central axis where 29 passes through 25 and 26).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetesnik (2004/0195041) in view of Man (9,789,926).
Claim 7: Vetesnik discloses the mount plate of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the pivot is a swivel plate pivot.
However, Man discloses a swivel plate pivot (Fig. 2; 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second body portions of Vetesnik to include the swivel pivot plate, as taught by Man, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the first and second body portions to be easily repositioned on the lifeline tower without binding.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetesnik (2004/0195041) in view of Subzda (2017/0138070).
Claim 10: Vetesnik discloses the mount plate of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the first body portion and first flange comprise a single section of stamped metal.
However, Subzda discloses stamped metal body portions and flanges (Fig. 22; 701, Para. [0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body portions and flanges of Vetesnik to be stamped from a single section of metal, as taught by Subzda, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would reduce manufacturing costs by eliminating excessive machining.
Claim 17: Vetesnik discloses the multi-piece mount plate of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the first wing is formed from a first section of stamped metal, and wherein the second wing is formed from a second section of stamped metal.
However, Subzda discloses stamped metal body portions and flanges (Fig. 22; 701, Para. [0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body portions and flanges of Vetesnik to be stamped from a single section of metal, as taught by Subzda, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would reduce manufacturing costs by eliminating excessive machining.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (2016/0281375) in view of Choate (6,779,630).
Claim 18: Rogers discloses the multi-piece mount plate of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein one or more of the first flange or the second flange comprises a mounting hole.
However, Choate discloses mounting holes in the flanges (Fig. 5; see detail).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flanges of Rogers to include the mounting holes, as taught by Choate, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would add stability by allowing additional means to mount the flange to the lifeline pole.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 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.
Claim 14 is deemed allowable due to the indexing protrusion comprising a second through-hole not coaxial with the through-hole.
Claim 15 is deemed allowable due to the first and second flanges comprising a plurality of mounting holes not coaxial with the first through-hole.
Claim 16 is deemed allowable due to its dependency from claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 and 17-18 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 Kathleen M. McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-9139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/Kathleen M. McFarland/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Kathleen M. McFarland
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635