DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-25 are pending.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the enclosure of claim 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It is not readily apparent from the specification whether or not the encloser refers to the housing or to a separate element.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites, “the structure” in line 1 and it appears intended to recite “a structure.” Appropriate correction is required.
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: “A catch mechanism” in claim 9 and claim 22. “A protruding guiding structure” in claim 25.
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. [0025] discloses the catch mechanism as teeth, protrusions, indents, or lips. [0030] discloses the protruding guiding structure as feature 98, shown for example in Fig. 6.
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(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-20, 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Griffiths et al (“Griffiths”) (US 2012/0298451).
At the outset, it is noted that the term, “contiguous” has been defined in [0014] as “from a single piece of” material.
Re claim 1, Griffiths discloses a fall limiting device (100, [0026]), comprising:
a housing (120, 70; 70 being in direct contact within 122) configured to receive (Fig. 3) a rotatable drum (50);
the rotatable drum (50) comprising an axle (10) and two side portions (51, 56), said rotatable drum (50) comprising a single contiguous material piece ([0028]);
a retractable member (65, [0037]) held, at least in part, within (Fig. 3) the housing (120) via winding around (Claim 14) the rotatable drum (50) within the two side portions (51, 56),
an unwinding-speed limit control (30) located on an exterior surface (right side of 56) of one of the side portions (56) of the rotatable drum (50), wherein the unwinding-speed limit control (30) is configured to engage with ([0034]) the housing (120, 70) and restrict payout ([0034]) of the retractable member (65) from the housing (120, 70) upon the retractable member (65) paying out at or above a predetermined threshold velocity ([0034]).
Re claim 2, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 1, wherein the axle (10) comprises exterior portions (15, 16), one exterior portion (15, 16) extending from an outside surface (of 51, of 56) of each side portion (51, 56; Fig. 3 shows 15 exterior to 51; although not shown in the Fig, [0013] discloses that pawl 30 is mounted on shaft 10, which to do so, 10 (and thus 15) must extend through 56); wherein the axle (10) further comprises a central portion (at 19) having an opening (19) that provides a path through an interior (interior to 50) of the rotatable drum (50) across a diameter (Fig. 3) or chord of the rotatable drum (50).
Re claim 3, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 2, further comprising a pin (68), wherein a portion (67) of the retractable member (65) is wrapped (66) around the pin (68) and affixed to itself (66 being a loop), wherein the central portion (at 19) of the axle (10) is configured to retain the pin (68) and the portion (67) of the retractable member (65) within the opening (19).
Re claim 5, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 1, wherein the single contiguous material piece ([0028]) comprises aluminum ([0039]).
Re claim 6, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 1, wherein the single contiguous material piece ([0028]) is die cast (as this language is product by process; see also [0039] disclosing casting).
It should further be noted that the language “die cast” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 8, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 1, wherein the unwinding-speed limit control comprises (30) a pawl ([0012]).
Re claim 9, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 8, wherein the pawl (30) is configured to pivot outwardly ([0013]) and interact with a catch mechanism (71) when the rotatable drum (50) rotates at more than a threshold rate ([0034]).
Re claim 10, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 9, wherein the housing (120, 70) comprises a tooth (171), a protrusion, an indent, or a lip, wherein the pawl (30) is configured to interact with ([0023]) the tooth (171), the protrusion, the indent, or the lip when pivoted outwardly ([0023]).
Re claim 11, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 1, wherein the structure ([0016], the spring-seating feature in the last line) for retaining the unwinding-speed limit control (30) comprises a first surface (bottom surface of 10) for interacting with a first end (top of 40) of a spring (40); wherein the unwinding-speed limit control (30) comprises a second surface (36) for interacting with a second end (left bottom end of 40) of the spring (40).
Re claim 12, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 11, wherein the spring (40) is configured to retain the unwinding-speed limit control (30) in a stowed position ([0016]) when the rotatable drum (50) is rotating at less than a threshold rate ([0034]).
Additionally, the language “when” is language that suggests or makes optional the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
Re claim 13, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 1, further comprising a retraction spring (130; [0034]), wherein the retraction spring (130) is configured to apply a winding force ([0034]) to the rotatable drum (50), wherein the fall limiting device (100) is configured to wind ([0034]) the retractable member (65) when the retractable member (65) is under a tension less than the winding force ([0034]).
Additionally, the language “when” is language that suggests or makes optional the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
Re claim 14, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 1, wherein the retractable member (65) comprises a rope or a line ([0027]).
Re claim 15, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 1, wherein the retractable member (65) comprises an energy absorber (80; [0034]) and a connection device ([034] disclosing a carabiner).
Re claim 16, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 15, wherein the connection device ([034] disclosing a carabiner) is a hook or a carabineer ([034] disclosing a carabiner).
Re claim 17, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 1, wherein the fall limiting device (100) is a component of a personal fall limiter ([0026]) or a self-retracting lanyard (SRL).
Re claim 18, Griffiths discloses a method of assembling (Fig. 3) a fall limiting device (100), comprising:
providing (Fig. 3 showing each feature provided) a rotatable drum (50) comprising an axle (10) and two side portions (51, 56), said rotatable drum (50) comprising the axle (10) having (i) exterior portions (15, 16), one exterior portion (15, 16) extending from an outside surface (outer surface of 51 and 56) of each side portion (51, 56; Fig. 3 shows 15 exterior to 51; although not shown in the Fig, [0013] discloses that pawl 30 is mounted on shaft 10, which to do so, 10 (and thus 15) must extend through 56), and (ii) a central portion (at 19, 18) having an opening (18, 19) that provides a path (19) through an interior (interior of 50) of the rotatable drum (50) across a diameter (of 50) of the rotatable drum (50);
passing ([0030]) a portion (66) of a retractable member (65) through the central portion (18, 19) of the axle (10);
attaching ([0030]) a pin (68) to the portion (66) of the retractable member (65);
securing ([0030]) the pin and the portion (66) of the retractable member (65) in the central portion (18, 19) by pulling (via retraction of 65) on a second portion (any other portion of 65) of the retractable member (65);
winding (Claim 17) the second portion (any other portion of 65) of the retractable member (65) around the rotatable drum (50);
providing (Fig. 3 showing 120 and 70 provided) a housing (120, 70) to receive the rotatable drum (50), wherein an unwinding-speed limit control (30) is located on an exterior surface (outer surface of 51 and 56) of one of (56) the side portions (51, 56) of the rotatable drum (50), and
wherein the unwinding-speed limit control (30) is configured to engage with ([0034]) the housing (120, 70) and restrict payout ([0034]) of the retractable member (65) from the housing (120, 70) upon the retractable member (65) paying out at or above a predetermined threshold velocity ([0034]).
Re claim 19, Griffiths discloses the method of claim 18, wherein rotatable drum (50) comprises a single contiguous material piece ([0028]).
Re claim 20, Griffiths as modified discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising: enclosing (Fig. 3 showing 50 enclosed) the rotatable drum (50) within an enclosure (121, 122), wherein the enclosure (121, 122) is configured to interact with the rotatable drum (50) to halt rotation ([0034]) when the rotatable drum (50) rotates at more than a threshold rate ([0034]).
Additionally, the language “when” is language that suggests or makes optional the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
Re claim 22, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 1, wherein the housing (120, 70) comprises a catch mechanism (71 disposed on (Fig. 3) an inner surface (inner surface of 70) of the housing (70) that is configured to engage with ([0034]) the unwinding-speed limit control (30) when the rotatable drum (50) rotates at more than a threshold rate ([0034]).
Re claim 23, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 22, wherein the catch mechanism (71) is a tooth ([0023]), a protrusion, an indent, or a lip.
Re claim 24, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 1, wherein the exterior surface (of 56) is a surface (56) of one of the side portions (51, 56) of the rotatable drum (50) farthest away from (Fig. 3) a central portion (of 10; such as the center portion of 10 proximate 16) of the axle (10).
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths et al (“Griffiths”) (US 2012/0298451) in view of Auston et al (“Auston”) (US 2011/0100766).
Re claim 4, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the portion of the retractable member is affixed to itself via stitching, adhesive, or a retention clip or ring.
However, Auston discloses wherein the portion of the retractable member (14) is affixed to itself via stitching ([0041]), adhesive, or a retention clip or ring.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fall limiting device of Griffiths wherein the portion of the retractable member is affixed to itself via stitching, adhesive, or a retention clip or ring as disclosed by Auston in order to utilize a simple, permanent manner of forming loop 66.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths et al (“Griffiths”) (US 2012/0298451) in view of Allington et al (“Allington”) (US 2010/0308149).
Re claim 21, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising one or more noise reducer pads positioned between the rotatable drum and the housing.
However, Allington discloses further comprising one or more noise reducer pads (125) positioned between the rotatable drum (136) and the housing (126).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fall limiting device of Griffiths with further comprising one or more noise reducer pads positioned between the rotatable drum and the housing as disclosed by Allington in order to reduce vibration, noise and wear ([0147]).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths et al (“Griffiths”) (US 2012/0298451) in view of Shrank (US 2023/0271039).
Re claim 21, Griffiths discloses the fall limiting device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the exterior surface of the side portion that comprises the unwinding-speed limit control further comprises a protruding guiding structure configured to limit movement of the unwinding-speed limit control.
However, Shrank discloses wherein the exterior surface (of 40) of the side portion (40) that comprises the unwinding-speed limit control (20) further comprises a protruding guiding structure (60) configured to limit movement ([0056]) of the unwinding-speed limit control (20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fall limiting device of Griffiths wherein the exterior surface of the side portion that comprises the unwinding-speed limit control further comprises a protruding guiding structure configured to limit movement of the unwinding-speed limit control as disclosed by Shrank in order to bear and dissipate a portion of the force developed upon the unwinding-speed limit control engaging the tooth ([0058]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims rejected under 35 USC 112 have been considered but are persuasive. Rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112 are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot as they do not apply to any of the combination of references relied upon in the above.
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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635 l