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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
A configuration that would allow for rotation around the vertical structure while moving vertically, as claimed in claim 6. See corresponding 112 rejections below.
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.
Specification
The amendment filed September 29, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the amendments to paragraph [0074] add new matter with the introduction of tension adjustment system 225, endless screw 226, and the operation of one would use these components to rotate the platform around the supporting structure. Examiner also notes that while a handle (now identified as 227) and mounting bracket (now identified as 228) were visible in the original figures, the features between them were not clear and so the addition of the endless screw 226 and tension adjustment system 225 are considered new matter.
Had these features been clear in original drawings there may have been support for them, however as it is the original drawings with very unclear and these features and their alleged operation for rotating the platform around the vertical structure are not supported by the original specification (or drawings).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-7 and 22-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, 12, the amended language “wherein the upper locking support is selectivelyrestricting downward movement” reads awkwardly. The original limitation was more grammatically correct.
Claim 6 depends from cancelled claim 5. Because the “sliding system” previously in claim 5 has been added to claim 1, examiner will read claim 6 as depending from claim 1.
Claim, 7, line 1, it appears the words “of one” should be deleted. This objection was noted in the previous Office Action, but has yet to be addressed by the applicant.
The preamble of Claims 22 and 23 do not match the preamble of claim 1, from which the depend.
Additionally, in claim 22, line 4, it appears “move” should be “moves”
Similarly, claim 23, line 2, it appears “move” should be “moves”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2,4, 6-11 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to independent claim 1, examiner does not see where in the disclosure it is explained how the upper locking support “is selectively restricting the downward movement of the platform along the structure”. The upper locking support 280 is disclosed as a retaining member (i.e. a chain or strap), connected to a bracket with a locking mechanism/tensioner. Via the disclosure it appears that the suspension cable, winch and lower locking support, not the upper locking support, are the structures that selectively restrict downward movement of the platform. It is requested that applicant either point out where in the disclosure the identified limitation is explained and supported, or that appropriate amendments are made to the claim language.
Similarly, regarding the amended limitation “and allowing vertical movement of the platform when tension is released on the upper locking support”, does not appear to have support in the original disclosure. Again, it is noted that the upper locking support 280 is disclosed as a retaining member (i.e. a chain or strap), connected to a bracket with a locking mechanism/tensioner. Via the disclosure it appears that the suspension cable and winch, not the upper locking support, are the structures that selectively allow vertical movement of the platform. Releasing the tension on the upper locking support can only be done when the platform is secured to the vertical structure by the lower locking support; and does not result in an instance that allows for the platform to move vertically.
With respect to claim 6, examiner does not see where in the original disclosure it is described how the sliding system is configured to slide around the vertical structure and allow rotation of the platform while moving vertically. The “sliding structure” of the disclosure are elements 222, 224, which are disclosed as straps or chains for securing the platform 200 to the vertical structure 1 to prevent undesirable pivoting and limit lateral movement of the platform 200 about the vertical structure 1.
Nowhere in the original disclosure it is explained how the sliding system is configured to slide around the vertical structure and allow rotation of the platform while moving vertically. The current arrangement depicted in the figures and described in the specification appears to be limited to vertical movement of the platform with respect to the vertical structure (raising and lowering the platform 200 along the post 1).
With respect to claim 18, the examiner does not see where in the original disclosure it is explained how, in the method of vertically descending a platform, the “sliding of the platform along the vertical structure” can take place before the “releasing tension of a self-locking support mechanism adapted to restrict a downward movement of the platform”.
The added “tension adjustment system for varying the tension of the support strap as the platform assembly move[s] along the vertical structure” in newly added claim 22, is also considered new matter since there is no support for this in the original disclosure, as explained in the above specification new matter objections. Similarly, the sliding system being adjustable to a diameter of the vertical structure as the platform moves with respect to the vertical structure, as claimed in newly added claim 23, is also considered new matter as there’s no support for this limitation in the original disclosure.
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 1, 2, 4, 6-11 and 18-23 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.
With respect to independent claim 1, it is unclear how the upper locking support “is selectively restricting the downward movement of the platform along the structure”. The upper locking support 280 is disclosed as a retaining member (i.e. a chain or strap), connected to a bracket with a locking mechanism/tensioner. Via the disclosure it appears that the suspension cable, winch and lower locking support, not the upper locking support, are the structures that selectively restrict downward movement of the platform. In their response applicant pointed to [0069] and [0081] for explanation. However, neither of the cited paragraphs clear up how the upper locking support selectively restricts downward movement of the platform. It is also noted that [0081] is directed to the pivoting mechanism 272, which seems unrelated to the issue at hand.
Similarly, regarding the amended limitation “and allowing vertical movement of the platform when tension is released on the upper locking support”, renders the claim unclear as it is not understood how releasing tension on 280 would allow the platform to move vertically. Again, it is noted that the upper locking support 280 is disclosed as a retaining member (i.e. a chain or strap), connected to a bracket with a locking mechanism/tensioner. Via the disclosure it appears that the suspension cable and winch, not the upper locking support, are the structures that selectively allow vertical movement of the platform. Releasing the tension on the upper locking support can only be done when the platform is secured to the vertical structure by the lower locking support; and does not result in an instance that allows for the platform to move vertically.
With respect to claim 18 it is unclear how, in a method of vertically descending a platform, the “sliding of the platform along the vertical structure” can take place before the “releasing tension of a self-locking support mechanism adapted to restrict a downward movement of the platform”.
Dependent claims not directly named are rejected for being dependent upon an unclear claim.
Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
No new matter should be added.
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) 12-14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lane (US 3,957,135).
Lane discloses:
12. A method of vertically moving a platform (11, figure 2, see below) about a substantially cylindrical and vertical structure (T) comprising:
continuously restricting a downward movement of the platform along the vertical structure (via the internal automatic locking means of rope in upper block in B1; col. 3, lines 60-61);
securing an upper locking support (12), to the vertical structure (T) above the platform at a first location (figure 1);
lifting the platform (pulling on free end 74’ of rope 74; col. 3, lines 45-48) while the downward movement of the platform is continuously restricted by a lower self-locking support system (internal automatic locking means of rope in upper block in B1; col. 3, lines 60-61) and
sliding the platform (via roller 46, figure 2) along the vertical structure (T) during the lifting (figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
748
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
13. The method of claim 12 further comprising releasing tension on the upper locking support (col. 4, lines 35-39) while the downward movement of the platform is continuously restricted (platform held in place by lower hanger 12’).
14. The method of claim of claim 13 further comprising securing the upper locking support (12) to the vertical structure at a second location above the first location and ascending the vertical structure near the second location (Col. 4, lines 9-34).
16. The method of claim 12 further comprising using a release lever (75) of a self-locking support mechanism (internal automatic locking means of rope in upper block in B1) to release tension of the self-locking support mechanism while the upper locking support (12) is secured (Col. 4, lines 9-34).
17. The method of claim 12 wherein securing the upper locking support comprises engaging a quick release lever (hanger bolt 51 functions as the quick release lever in that when downward force is applied to 51 it causes pipe 50 to rotate downwardly relative to T, causing the chains 58 and 60 to wrap around the pipe, and therefore tighten the belt around the tree; col. 4, lines 48-59, see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
404
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Payne (US 6,079517).
Payne discloses:
12. A method of vertically moving a platform (figure 1) about a substantially cylindrical and vertical structure (48) comprising:
continuously restricting a downward movement of the platform along the vertical structure (figure 2);
securing an upper locking support (figure 8), to the vertical structure (48) above the platform at a first location (figure 1);
lifting the platform (via winch 112, figure 4, of elevator assembly 16, figure 1) while the downward movement of the platform is continuously restricted by a lower self-locking support system (figure 2); and
sliding the platform (via rollers 52, figure 5) along the vertical structure (T) during the lifting (figure 2).
15. The method of claim 12 wherein lifting the vertical structure comprises actuating a motorized lifting device (motorized winch; Abstract, [0009], [0024]).
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) 1-11 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewitt (US pub 2003/0178251) in view of Payne (US 6,079,517), as best understood in light of the above rejections.
Hewitt discloses:
1. A self-climbing platform assembly (10, figure 3) adapted to movably attach to a substantially cylindrical and vertical structure (28, figure 3), the self-climbing platform assembly comprising:
a platform (11) forming a surface for supporting a load, the platform being adapted to hang from the vertical structure above ground (figure 3),
an upper locking support (22, figure 3) comprising:
a retaining member (24a, figure 3) configured to surround at least an outer portion of the vertical structure (figure 3) and to frictionally engage with the outer portion of the vertical structure (when tensioned);
a bracket (figure 9) configured to receive first and second ends of the retaining member (figure 3); and
a first locking mechanism (ratcheting mechanism of 22) for selectively tensioning and releasing tension in the retaining member to the vertical structure ([0025]);
wherein the upper locking support is selectively restricting downward movement of the platform along the structure (as best understood, it restricts movement by being part of the system that holds the platform at elevation) and allowing vertical movement of the platform when tension is released on the upper locking support ([0033]); and
at least one sliding system (66, figure 1) to allow the platform to slide along the vertical structure (when loosened the strap allows for sliding of the platform along the vertical structure).
Hewitt does not disclose a lower self-locking support system attached to the platform, the lower self-locking support comprising a pivoting biased friction member automatically supporting the vertical load of the platform and restricting downward movement of the platform along the vertical structure while allowing an upward movement along the structure.
However, Payne, teaches: a lower self-locking support system (figure 2) attached to the platform (via connecting components; figure 1), the lower self-locking support (figure 2) comprising a pivoting (@126) biased (via spring 130) friction member (128) automatically supporting the vertical load of the platform (by engagement of pointed end 128 in tree, figure 2) and restricting downward movement of the platform along the vertical structure while allowing an upward movement along the structure (construction of locking pin 122 seen in figure 2 allows for upward movement, but downward movement would be restricted by pointed end 128 pushing into the tree unless handle 134, fig 3, is actuated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the self-climbing platform of Hewitt with a lower self-locking support system attached to the platform, the lower self-locking support comprising a pivoting biased friction member automatically supporting the vertical load of the platform and restricting downward movement of the platform along the vertical structure while allowing an upward movement along the structure, as taught by Payne, so as to provide the user with an additional safety system should the supporting cable or winch fail.
Hewitt additionally discloses:
2. The self-climbing platform of claim 1, the platform (11) being suspended from the bracket (bracket of 22) by a cable (18, figure 3).
4. The self-climbing platform of claim 2, wherein the platform further comprises a winch (14) connected to the cable (18), the winch being adapted to lift and descend the platform when the upper locking support (22) is engaged with the vertical structure ([0033], [0034]).
6. The self-climbing platform of claim 5 [being examined as depending from claim 1], wherein the sliding system (66) is configured to slide around the vertical structure (figure 1) and allow rotation of the platform around the vertical structure while moving vertically (as much as the strap of applicants would allow for rotation).
10. The self-climbing platform of claim 1, wherein the upper locking support comprises a quick tension releasing lever ([0024]).
23) The platform assembly of claim 1, the sliding system (66) being adjustable to a diameter of the vertical structure as the platform move with respect to the vertical structure (strap 66 is adjustable to the diameter of the tree via cinching; [0028], [0033]) .
With respect to the lower self-locking support system, Payne teaches:
7. The self-climbing platform of one of claim 1, wherein the lower self-locking locking support system (figure 3) comprises a lever (136, figure 3) for temporarily disengaging the lower self-locking locking mechanism (column 5, lines 43-46).
8. The self-climbing platform of claim 7, wherein the friction member (128) is biased by a resilient member (130) to maintain the lower self-locking support system against the structure (figure 2).
9. The self-climbing platform of claim 8, the resilient member being a spring (130, figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the self-climbing platform of Hewitt with a lower self-locking support system attached to the platform, the lower self-locking support comprising a pivoting biased friction member automatically supporting the vertical load of the platform and restricting downward movement of the platform along the vertical structure while allowing an upward movement along the structure, as taught by Payne, so as to provide the user with an additional safety system should the supporting cable or winch fail.
Re: claim 11, While Hewitt does disclose a pivoting mechanism (58, 76, fig 3) adapted to pivot the platform about an axis (pivotal connection between 12 and 16 to fold from figure 3 position to figure 5 position) substantially orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the vertical structure (figure 3), they do not disclose the pivoting mechanism comprising a telescopic rod. However, Payne teaches the pivoting mechanism (92, 98, 102) comprising a telescopic rod (102 folds within 92, 98, which a form of telescoping).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the pivoting mechanism of Hewitt with a telescoping rod, as taught by Payne, so as to provide a more versatile mechanism, allowing for greater expansion and further compaction as needed.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objection with respect to the claim the subject matter of claim 6 remains. In response to the objection applicant amended the drawings and specification to add support, however the added material is not supported by the original disclosure. See 112(a) rejection of claim 6 above.
With respect to the remarks directed to the 112rejections, the examiner has addressed these issues in the respective sections above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections 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 COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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, 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.
COLLEEN M. CHAVCHAVADZE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634