DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission dated 03/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by French document 2 966 181 – Deloy.
Regarding claim 1.
Deloy discloses a horizontal lifeline system (3, fig 1) comprising:
at least one post system (4, fig 1), comprising:
an extending post member (5, fig 5);
a first end member (13, fig 3) operably coupled with a first end of the extending post member (at 15, fig 3; see fig 5), wherein the first end member includes a first end section (below 18, fig 4), an intermediate section (at 18, fig 4), and second end section (at 14 in fig 4); and
a second end member (including 8 and 9, fig 3) operably coupled with a second end of the extending post member (at 19 in fig 5), wherein the second end member includes a first section (below 20, fig 3) and a second section (20 and above, fig 3);
wherein the second section extends at an angle with respect to the first section (see fig 5) and positions a lifeline (6, fig 5) to a first height (See fig 5); and
wherein the first end member (13, fig 5) is connected to the second end member (9, fig 5) via a breakable connector (webs adjacent 20 in fig 4), a tensile force of a first threshold magnitude being required between the first end member and the second end member to break the breakable connector (See fig 6), upon breaking of the breakable connector, the second section (18, fig 6) of the second end member bends under deformation (See fig 6) to decrease the angle between the first section and the second section to lower a height of the lifeline (See fig 6).
Regarding claim 2.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Deloy further discloses the second section (20 and above, fig 3) of the second end member (including 8 and 9, fig 3) includes slots extending across its width (20, fig 4).
Regarding claim 3.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Deloy further discloses the intermediate section (18, fig 6) of the first end member (13, fig 5) extends through a slot (20, fig 4) of the second section of the second end member (when broken, see fig 6).
Regarding claim 4.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 3.
Deloy further discloses the intermediate section (18, fig 3) is curved (See fig 3).
Regarding claim 5.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 3.
Deloy further discloses the intermediate section (18, fig 3) of the first end member (13, fig 3) is connected to the second end section (at 14 in fig 4) of the first end member (See fig 3).
Regarding claim 6.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 5.
Deloy further discloses a dimension of the second end section (at 14 in fig 4) of the first end member (13, fig 3) is greater than a dimension of the slot (20, fig 5; See fig 5).
Regarding claim 7.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Deloy further discloses the tensile force of the first threshold magnitude being required between the first end member and the second end member to break the breakable connector (Compare figs 5 and 6), upon breaking of the breakable connector, the first end member (13, fig 3) bends to lower the height of the lifeline (See fig 6).
Regarding claim 9.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 2.
Deloy further discloses the slots (20, fig 4) can be formed monolithically with other components of the second end member (See fig 4).
Regarding claim 10.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Deloy further discloses deformation of the second section of the second end member is plastic deformation (See fig 6).
Regarding claim 11.
Deloy discloses a post system (4, fig 1) for use in fall protection, comprising:
an extending post member (5, fig 5);
a first end member (13, fig 3) operably coupled with a first end of the extending post member (at 15, fig 3; see fig 5), wherein the first end member includes a first end section (below 18, fig 4), an intermediate section (at 18, fig 4), and second end section (at 14 in fig 4); and
a second end member (including 8 and 9, fig 3) operably coupled with a second end of the extending post member (at 19 in fig 5), wherein the second end member includes a first section (below 20, fig 3) and second section (20 and above, fig 3);
wherein the second section extends at an angle with respect to the first section (see fig 5) and positions a lifeline (6, fig 5) to a first height (See fig 5); and
wherein the first end member (13, fig 5) is connected to the second end member (9, fig 5) via a breakable connector (webs adjacent 20 in fig 4), a tensile force of a first threshold magnitude being required between the first end member and the second end member to break the breakable connector (See fig 6), upon breaking of the breakable connector, the second section (18, fig 6) of the second end member bends under deformation (See fig 6) to decrease the angle between the first section and the second section to lower a height of the lifeline (See fig 6).
Regarding claim 12.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 11.
Deloy further discloses the second section (20 and above, fig 3) of the second end member (including 8 and 9, fig 3) includes slots (20, fig 4) extending across its width (See fig 4).
Regarding claim 13.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 11.
Deloy further discloses the intermediate section (18, fig 6) of the first end member (13, fig 5) extends through a slot (20, fig 4) of the second section of the second end member (when broken, see fig 6).
Regarding claim 14.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 13.
Deloy further discloses the intermediate section (18, fig 4) is curved (See fig 4).
Regarding claim 15.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 13.
Deloy further discloses the intermediate section (18, fig 3) of the first end member (13, fig 3) is connected to the second end section (at 14 in fig 4) of the first end member (See fig 3).
Regarding claim 16.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 15.
Deloy further discloses a dimension of the second end section (at 14 in fig 4) of the first end member (13, fig 3) is greater than a dimension of the slot (20, fig 5; See fig 5).
Regarding claim 17.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 11.
Deloy further discloses the tensile force of the first threshold magnitude being required between the first end member and the second end member to break the breakable connector (Compare figs 5 and 6), upon breaking of the breakable connector, the first end member (13, fig 3) bends to lower the height of the lifeline (See fig 6).
Regarding claim 19.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 12.
Deloy further discloses the slots (20, fig 4) can be formed monolithically with other components of the second end member (See fig 4).
Regarding claim 20.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 19.
Deloy further discloses deformation of the second section of the second end member is plastic deformation (See fig 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8 and 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deloy in view of US Pat. 5,433,290 – Ellis et al., hereinafter Ellis.
Regarding claim 8.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 3.
Deloy does not disclose a tensile force of a second threshold magnitude greater than the first threshold magnitude, is required for the intermediate section of the first end member to tear the slots in the second end member to absorb energy.
However, Ellis teaches a tensile force of a second threshold magnitude greater than the first threshold magnitude, is required to tear sequential breakable connectors (16a-o, fig 1) to absorb energy.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Deloy by duplicating the breakable connector as suggested by Ellis, thus requiring a tensile force of a second threshold magnitude greater than the first threshold magnitude, is required for the intermediate section of the first end member to tear the slots in the second end member to absorb energy as currently claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing progressive resistance to cushion the shock of a fall.
Regarding claim 18.
Deloy discloses all limitations of claim 12.
Deloy does not disclose a tensile force of a second threshold magnitude greater than the first threshold magnitude, is required for the intermediate section of the first end member to tear the slots in the second end member to absorb energy.
However, Ellis teaches a tensile force of a second threshold magnitude greater than the first threshold magnitude, is required to tear sequential breakable connectors (16a-o, fig 1) to absorb energy.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Deloy by duplicating the breakable connector as suggested by Ellis, thus requiring a tensile force of a second threshold magnitude greater than the first threshold magnitude, is required for the intermediate section of the first end member to tear the slots in the second end member to absorb energy as currently claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing progressive resistance to cushion the shock of a fall.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 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 JOHN W HANES JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
/J.W.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights