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 .
The following office action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on August 8, 2025. The claims are rejected as set forth below. The objections and 35 USC 112b rejections of the previous office action have been overcome by applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1, 8-10, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (20050133303) in view of Delamare et al. (2015/0287562).
In regard to claim 1, Hsu discloses a fall arrest indicator 30 for indicating a fall arrest event, the fall arrest indicator comprising:
An actuator 20 which is reconfigurable between a first configuration, which comprises a contracted or folded configuration (figure 4) of the actuator, and a second configuration, which comprises an extended or unfolded configuration (figure 5) of the actuator;
an electronic alarm circuit comprising a switch 35 and an alarm for indicating a fall arrest event [0021-0024]; and
activating means 37, 38, which comprises an attachment member 38 which is secured at a first end thereof to a medium disposed between electrical contacts of the switch and at a second end thereof to the actuator
wherein the activating means is arranged to reconfigure the electronic alarm circuit from an inactive state in which the alarm is inactive and an operative state in which the alarm is activated in dependence of a reconfiguration of the actuator between the first and second configurations (when the pin 38 is in place, no alarm, when the pin is pulled out, alarm goes off). [0024].
Hsu discloses the fall arrest indicator as described above, but does not specifically state that the medium is an electrically insulating medium, or that when the alarm circuit is in an inactive state, the switch is an open circuit and that when the alarm circuit is in an active state the switch is in a closed circuit and activated. Hsu teaches that when in the inactive state the metal pin 37 closes the circuit and when the active state, the circuit is open, i.e. the opposite of the claimed device. However, Delamare teaches that it is well-known in the art to provide an electrically insulating medium to keep a circuit open in an inactive state and to ionize the medium to close the circuit. Thus, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrically insulative medium for the pin of Hsu because this would prevent keep the circuit open in an inactive state and close the circuit when the pin was removed. This is merely a reversal of the type of switch to be used. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one well-known switch for a different well-known switch because both switch types would perform the same function, i.e. to set of or activate the alarm circuit when removed.
In regard to claim 8, Hsu in view of Delamare disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Hsu further teaches that the electronic alarm circuit is arranged in fixed relation relative to a first end portion of the length of the actuator and the attachment member is secured at the second end thereof to a second end portion of the actuator (figure 3).
In regard to claim 9, Hsu in view of Delamare disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Hsu further teaches that the attachment member 38 comprises a substantially inelastic tether, i.e. rope [0021]. The examiner contends that rope is substantially inelastic because rope does not typically stretch a substantial amount.
In regard to claim 10, Hsu in view of Delamare disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Hsu further teaches that the activating means comprises a controller for controlling operation of the alarm [0021-025].
In regard to claim 15, Hsu in view of Delamare disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the actuator comprises a strap or webbing. Element 20 is considered to be a strap or webbing as shown in the figures.
In regard to claim 16, Hsu in view of Delamare disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the first configuration comprises a folded configuration of the webbing and the second configuration comprises an unfolded configuration of the webbing (figures 4-5 and [0024]).
In regard to claim 19, Hsu in view of Delamare disclose a harness comprising the fall arrest indicator of claim 1 (figure 1 or Hsu).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (20050133303) in view of Delamare et al. (2015/0287562) and further in view of Hsu (20050092546).
In regard to claim 4, Hsu in view of Delamare disclose the basic claimed invention, but fail to disclose that the actuator further comprises a casing which is secured to a first end portion of the actuator. However, Hsu ‘546 teaches that it is well known to place an actuator device inside a casing 39 (figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place a cover over Hsu ‘303 actuator device 20, because, as taught by Hsu ‘546, the cover 39 will shield and protect the device (i.e. webbing) inside.
In regard to claim 5, Hsu ‘303 in view of Delamare ‘562 and Hsu ‘546 disclose the claimed invention except for specifically disclosing that the electronic alarm circuit is also disposed within the casing. Hsu ‘303 does disclose that his circuit is in a casing 31, 32, but it is not the same casing as taught to cover element 20. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place one casing over both the actuator and the activating means because by placing both elements under one casing, they could be protected and shielded from damage while in use.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (20050133303) in view of Delamare et al. (2015/0287562) and further in view of Pham et al. (20170162024).
In regard to claims 11, 12, 17, and 18, Hsu in view of Delamare disclose the basic claimed invention except for specifically disclosing that the activation means further comprises a tag and a sensor or reader for interrogating the tag and a transceiver that communicates a distress signal to a remote base station. Pham teaches the use of a tag 130, 140 and sensor/reader 150 that can communicate a signal to a remote base station. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a tag and sensor as taught by Pham in Hsu’s invention, because the alarm could be relayed via RF signal to a central monitoring station where someone would be alerted immediately of a possible fall and person in danger. Further, the sensor/reader is arranged to sense or interrogate as the actuator changes from the first to second position and output a signal as stated above.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (20050133303) in view of Delamare et al. (2015/0287562) and Pham et al. (20170162025) and further in view of Hsu (20050092546).
In regard to claim 13, Hsu in view of Delamare and Pham et al. discloses the fall arrest indicator according to claim 11, but fail to disclose that the electronic circuit is disposed within a casing secured to a first end portion of the actuator with the actuator arranged toward a first end of the casing and the sensor disposed at a second end of the casing. However, Hsu ‘546 teaches that it is well known to place an actuator device inside a casing 39 (figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place a cover over Hsu ‘303 in view of Pham el al. and arrange the actuator device, webbing 20, and circuit as claimed, because, as taught by Hsu ‘546, the cover 39 will shield and protect the device (i.e. webbing and circuit) inside.
In regard to claim 14, Hsu ‘303 in view of Delamare, Pham, and Hsu ‘546 disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the tag is disposed upon the length of the actuator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 8, 2025, with respect to objections and 112b rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections and 35 USC 112b rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed August 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the Hsu does not disclose an electronic alarm circuit comprising a switch; an activating means comprising an attachment member secured to an electrically insulating medium disposed between the contacts of the switch; and wherein the activating means reconfigures the electronic alarm circuit from an inactive state where the switch is in an open circuit to an operative state where the switch is in a closed circuit.
First, the examiner would like to point out that Hsu does clearly disclose a switch 35 as pointed out in the above rejection. Second, in the previous office action, the examiner stated that Hsu did not specifically disclose the electrically insulating medium, but said that electrically insulating mediums are well-known and it would have been obvious to substitute the medium for Hsu’s member 38. Finally, the limitations drawn to the switch being open when in an inactive state and being closed when in an operative state, this was not specifically claimed previously. The claims only claimed that the switch moved from an open circuit state to a closed-circuit state. However, they did not correlate between open and inactive and closed and active. Thus, since Hsu taught that a switch that moved between an open and closed state to be active and inactive [0024], the limitations were met. The applicant’s argument is now moot because the examiner has provided a new ground of rejection in light of applicant’s amendment. As can be seen in the above rejection, Delamare teaches that it is well-known in the art to provide an electrically insulating medium to keep a circuit open in an inactive state and to ionize the medium to close the circuit. Thus, the limitations are met in view of Hsu and Delamare.
In regard to the applicant’s arguments pertaining to the dependent claims, the applicant basically argues that they are not taught because the limitations of claim 1 are not taught. As pointed out above, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Hsu in view of Delamare. The new ground of rejection was necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Further, applicant has not provided any specific reasons why Hsu or the other references used do not teach the claimed limitations of the dependent claims. Again, the applicant merely states that they don’t cure the deficiencies of claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that the claims are properly rejected as set forth 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 Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633