DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the amendment filed on November 12, 2025. Claims 4, 5, 7, 12, 16, 19 and 20 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 6 8-11, 13-15, 17, 18 and 21-23 are pending. Claims 1-3, 6 8-11, 13-15, 17, 18 and 21-23 are rejected as set forth below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 17 be found allowable, claim 23 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutsen (US Pub 2017/0211661) in view of O’Neill (US 7,455,593).
In regard to Claim 1, Kutsen discloses a lanyard assembly (Figs 1-3) comprising: an elongate lanyard (200) that includes a chain of multiple interconnected links (Fig 1), including an end link (link on bottom in profile) that forms one end of the chain and a second link (directly above end link) immediately adjacent in the chain to the end link (Fig 6); a terminator (110) that includes a terminator body (Fig 3), the terminator body having a lanyard recess (opening at top of 114, shaded in excerpt figure below) (Fig 3), a chain recess (116) being arranged in a floor of the lanyard recess (Fig 3) (outlined in excerpt of figure below), the chain recess being configured to receive at least the end link (Fig 6); a retainer (180) configured to pass through the end link to prevent removal of the end link from the chain recess (Fig 6) [0028]; and a connector element (128) configured so as to be connectable to an object to effect connection of the lanyard assembly to the object, the connector element being connected to the terminator body by a swivel (Fig 2) [0025].
PNG
media_image1.png
380
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kutsen does not disclose a cover over the chain. O’Neill teaches a chain includes a cover for its links, at least the end link projecting from the cover (Fig 3) (column 4, lines 1-9). 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 chain as disclosed by Kutsen to include a cover over the chain as taught by O’Neill, in order to protect a user from getting their fingers stuck in the chain links, thus offering additional user protection. When combined, the cover would extend to the end of the swivel device (top of 100 in figure 1) so as to protect an entirety of the chain.
In regard to Claim 2, Kutsen discloses the lanyard assembly as described above, in which at least part of the second link is received within the chain recess (Figs 3, 6).
In regard to Claim 3, Kutsen discloses the lanyard assembly as described above, in which the chain recess has first (119) and second extents (116) within which the second link and the end link respectively are received (Fig 3).
In regard to Claim 8, Kutsen discloses the lanyard assembly as described above, in which the connection between the connector element and the terminator body is independent of the connection between the chain and the terminator body (Fig 2).
In regard to Claim 9, Kutsen discloses the lanyard assembly as described above, in which the first and second extents of the chain recess are shaped and dimensioned to minimize movement of the links received within the chain recess (Figs 3, 6).
In regard to Claims 13 and 14, Kutsen in view of O’Neill discloses the lanyard assembly as described above, but does not disclose an end portion of the cover closely approaches or abuts the floor of the lanyard recess. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention when combining the lanyard assembly of Kutsen with the chain cover of O’Neill to extend the cover to abut a floor of the lanyard recess, in order to fully enclose the chain and offer protection to a user.
In regard to Claim 18, Kutsen discloses the apparatus as described above, in which the chain recess has first (119) and second extents (116) within which the second link and the end link respectively are received (Figs 3, 6).
In regard to Claim 22, Kutsen discloses the lanyard assembly as described above, wherein the chain recess comprises first and second extents within which the second link and the end link respectively are received (Fig 3), and where the extents of the chain recess are shaped and dimensioned to minimize movement of the links received within the chain recess (Figs 3, 6).
Claims 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutsen in view of O’Neill as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cowell (US Pub 2016/0319905).
In regard to Claim 6, Kutsen discloses the lanyard assembly as described above, but does not disclose the terminator body including a threaded recess to connect the connector swivel. Cowell teaches a terminator body includes a threaded recess (threaded recess in 42) into which the connector swivel can be threaded (Fig 7). 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 terminal body/connector attachment of Kutsen to be a threaded connection as taught by Cowell, in order to more easily switch out the connector attachments for alternates, thereby providing additional flexibility.
In regard to Claim 21, Kutsen discloses the lanyard assembly as described above, wherein the chain recess comprises first and second extents within which the second link and the end link respectively are received (Fig 3), and wherein the extents of the chain recess are shaped and dimensioned to minimize movement of the links received within the chain recess (Figs 3, 6).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutsen in view of O’Neill as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Hawkins et al. (US 3,318,575) (hereinafter Hawkins).
In regard to Claim 10, Kutsen discloses the lanyard assembly as described above, but does not disclose the entire length of the end link is received within the second extent of the chain recess. Hawkins teaches an entire length of the end link is received within a second extent of a chain recess (Fig 6). 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 second extent of the chain recess as taught by Kutsen to surround the entire end link as taught by Hawkins, since it will allow less movement between the chain and the terminator body and thus a more stable connection.
In regard to Claim 11, Kutsen discloses the lanyard assembly as described above, but does not disclose approximately half the length of the second link is received within the first extent of the chain recess. Hawkins teaches approximately half the length of the second link is received within the first extent of the chain recess (Fig 6). 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 extent of the chain recess as taught by Kutsen to surround about half of the second link as taught by Hawkins, since it will allow less movement between the chain and the terminator body and thus a more stable connection.
Claims 15, 17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutsen in view of O’Neill as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perner (US 9,265,989).
In regard to Claim 15, Kutsen discloses the lanyard assembly as described above, but does not disclose it attached to an apparatus suitable for use by a person working at a height with a harness and the terminator connecting thereto. Perner teaches an apparatus suitable for use by a person working at height comprising a harness and a lanyard assembly (100), the terminator being connected to an attachment point of the harness (at 606) (Col 2, lines 21-28) (Fig 1a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the lanyard assembly as taught by Kutsen with the harness of Perner, in order to offer different uses of the lanyard assembly of Kutsen, thus providing more marketability.
In regard to Claims 17 and 23, Perner in the combination teaches the apparatus as described above, in which the lanyard assembly is in addition connected to a further attachment point of the harness through a length adjuster (Col 2, lines 21-28) (Fig 1a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s argument that the device of Kutsen does not provide a lanyard recess into which a portion of the cover of a chain could be received, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Referring to the excerpt of the figure above, the shaded trapezoidal shape of Kutsen is a recess which receives a portion of the chain. When combined the cover of O’Neill would surround any exposed chain links so as to protect the chain links as described in the combination. Thus, when combined the lanyard recess of Kutsen would receive the cover of O’Neill.
In response to applicant's argument that Kutsen and O’Neill are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both the Kutsen and O’Neill references pertain to chain link assemblies with swiveling ends allowing for movement. When combined, the cover of O’Neill would wrap the chain and stop at the top of 100 in figure 1 of Kutsen so as to completely cover the chain, this point is closely approaching the floor of the lanyard recess, thus the claim limitations are met.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Mattei whose telephone number is (571)270-3238. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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 D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635