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 .
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 3 and 5 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.
Re. Cl. 3, the limitation “one or more of each of the following (disjunctive list” renders the claim indefinite in the Examiner’s position. The phrase “one or more of each” appears to require that the claim does include at least one of the items included in the list that follows the phrase. However, the term “disjunctive list” appears to contradict that interpretation since the term “disjunctive” is understood to mean expressing alternatives. Therefore, it is unclear if the Applicant intends for the claim to require one of each of the listed items or at least one of the listed items. Furthermore, the limitation “instead of the rotary arms arrangement” in Lind 9-10 renders the claim indefinite since it also contradicts the limitation “one or more of each of the following.” For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require at least one of the listed items. Appropriate clarification has been requested.
Re. Cl. 3, the limitations “or similar mechanical component,” “or similar features” and “such as a harness” render the claim indefinite in the Examiner’s position. The term “similar" and “such as” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "similar" and “such as”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Re. Cl. 3, the limitation “a gripping mechanism” in Line5 renders the claim indefinite since claim 3 depends from claim 2 which already establishes that gripping mechanism. Proper antecedent basis language is not used and therefore it appears as if the Applicant is claiming a second gripping mechanism. It is suggested that the Applicant amend the phrase to read “the gripping mechanism” to overcome this issue.
Re. Cl. 5, the phrases “an apparatus,” “a rope,” “a casing,” “a body,” “an interior portion,” “an exterior portion,” “a gripping mechanism,” and “a rope” renders the claim indefinite in the Examiner’s position. Claim 5 depends from claim 2 which already establishes all of these structures previously. Therefore, by not using proper antecedent basis language, it appears as if the Applicant is claiming a second structure different from what is previously mentioned in claim 2, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the Applicant amend the claim to use proper antecedent basis language or delete the dependency from claim 2 to overcome this issue.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “gripping mechanism” in claims 2-3 and 5 and “sliding mechanism” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant defines the gripping mechanism as a toothed plate and the sliding mechanism as a guide and a slot.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Casebolt US 5265696 (hereinafter Casebolt).
Re. Cl. 1, Casebolt discloses: A rope holder apparatus (Fig. 2) comprising: a casing (10, Fig. 1) having a slot (112, Fig. 8) configured to receive a rope having an axial direction into a hollow interior portion (see 12, Fig. 9); a spring-loaded linkage assembly (32, 40, 24 Fig. 4) pivotably attached to the casing (see Fig. 4); and a toothed plate (26, Fig. 4-5) disposed within the hollow interior portion that is pivotably attached to the casing by the spring-loaded linkage assembly (see Fig. 4-5), wherein the apparatus is adapted to hold the rope oriented in the rope's axial direction within the hollow interior portion (see Fig. 4) and is further adapted to hold the rope in place by the action of the toothed plate applying a clamping force to the rope (see Fig. 4).
Claim 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Skyba US 7076844 (hereinafter Skyba).
Re. Cl. 2, Skyba discloses: A apparatus (10, Fig. 1) adapted for holding a rope during climbing (see Fig. 1, in the same manner as rope 50), the apparatus comprising: a casing (12, Fig. 1) having a body defining an interior portion (see Fig. 1, where 50 is located), an exterior portion (see Fig. 2), and a slotted portion (17, Fig. 5) disposed through the casing (see Fig. 5), communicative between at least a part of a volume of the interior portion and the exterior portion (see Fig. 5); and a gripping mechanism (22, Fig. 5) disposed within the interior portion of the casing and movable between a first state substantially within the volume defined by the slotted portion (see Fig. 6) and a second state substantially outside of the volume defined by the slotted portion (see Fig. 5).
Re. Cl. 3, Skyba discloses: one or more of each of the following (disjunctive list):a spring (or similar mechanical component) (30, Fig. 1) adapted to bias the gripping mechanism towards the first state (see Fig. 6); a gripping mechanism having a replaceable toothed portion; one or more slots or similar features disposed on the casing adapted to affix the apparatus to another structure (such as a harness); two or more rotating arms connecting the case with gripping mechanism; one or more sliding mechanism for the toothed plate instead of the rotary arms arrangement.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skyba in view of Rose US 4034828 (hereinafter Rose).
Re. Cl. 5, Skyba discloses: A method of using the apparatus of Claim 2 (see Fig. 1-6 and rejection of claim 2 above), the method comprising: providing an apparatus adapted for holding a rope during climbing (see 10, Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising: a casing (12, Fig. 1) having a body defining an interior portion (see Fig. 1, where 50 is located), an exterior portion (exterior part of 12, Fig. 1), and a slotted portion disposed through the casing (17, Fig. 5), communicative between at least a part of a volume of the interior portion and the exterior portion (see Fig. 5); and a gripping mechanism (22, Fig. 1) disposed within the interior portion of the casing and movable between a first state substantially within the volume defined by the slotted portion (see Fig. 6) and a second state substantially outside of the volume defined by the slotted portion (see Fig. 5); introducing of a rope into the slot of the apparatus with an upward movement (see Fig. 1, 50 would need to be moved into the slot 17 in an upward motion under 56 and between 22 and 52/54); maintaining of the rope in place by the downward movement of the rope in its axis forcing the clamp mechanism to close (see Fig. 1, pulling down on 50 would force 22 to pivot downward and thus lock 50 therein); and releasing of the rope by an upward movement (Col. 3, Line 67-Col. 4, Line 5).
Re. Cl. 4-5, Skyba does not disclose the apparatus incorporated into a system, the system further comprising a harness adapted to securely mount the apparatus (Cl. 4) or providing a harness adapted to securely mount the apparatus, the apparatus securely mounted thereto; putting on the harness by a climber; adjusting the harness such that the apparatus stays in place at the height of the climber's chest (Cl. 5). Rose discloses the use of an apparatus (C, Fig. 11) adapted for holding a rope during climbing (see Fig. 11) wherein the apparatus is incorporated into a system (see Fig. 1), the system further comprising a harness adapted to securely mount the apparatus (see 70, Fig. 11); and providing a harness adapted to securely mount the apparatus (see 70, Fig. 11), the apparatus securely mounted thereto (see Fig. 11); putting on the harness by a climber (see Fig. 11); adjusting the harness such that the apparatus stays in place at the height of the climber's chest (see Fig. 11).
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 Skyba device to be employed on a harness of a climber as disclosed by Rose with reasonable expectation of success since Rose states that such a modification would provide a safety apparatus for ladder climbing (Col. 9, Lines 50-55).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brown US 5133111, Fertier US 4531610, Gibbs US 5146655, Macias US 5548873, Montplaisir US 4308643, Schiff US 1736290, and Thomas US 6837337 disclose other known apparatus which are presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632