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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 15, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-9 and 11-13 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.
The newly amended limitation that the anchor plate includes “a pair of side-by-side holes to which the lifeline is mechanically coupled” raises indefiniteness as it is not clear from the specification if the lifeline is mechanically coupled to both holes, or only a single hole of the pair of holes in the anchor plate. Specification [0004] recites that the “fixed cable anchor may include a hole to which the lifeline is mechanically coupled”, and [0024] recites that anchor plate 123 “may include one or more holes 125 positioned to allow lifeline 1152 coupled thereto.” Neither of these statements clarifies if the lifeline is attached to more than one hole, or if the addition of a second hole, or more, simply provides an additional attachment point for another lifeline that may be present. Additionally, the connection between the lifeline and the hole(s) is not shown in detail in any of the drawings to clarify this issue.
Dependent claims are rejected for being dependent upon the rejected claim.
Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
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, 4-8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al. (US 2016/0144207) in view of Aoki (WO 2013/002160).
Reynolds et al. disclose:
1. A system (figure 2, see below) comprising:
a fall arrest system (20, figure 2), the fall arrest system comprising:
a lifeline (24 figure 3), the lifeline (24) extending along a portion of a water tank (12) of the vehicle (figure 2);
a plurality of fixed cable anchors (figs 5B, 5C; fig 5B is the anchor at first end of cable 24 and fig 5C is the anchor at second end of cable 24), the plurality of fixed cable anchors mechanically coupled (via mounting block 23) to the water tank (figure 2), wherein the plurality of fixed cable anchors each comprise a mounting plate (23 and/or horizontal plate atop 23, figures 5B, 5C), the mounting plate mechanically coupled to the water tank (unnumbered bolts seen in figures 5B-5C; mounting blocks 23 are disclosed as “affixed” to tank 12), and an anchor plate (42; figs 5B, 5C), the anchor plate (42) attached perpendicularly to the mounting plate (figs 5B, 5C), the anchor plate including a hole (hole in 42 through which connectors of 44 and 56 pass; figs 5B. 5C) to which the lifeline (24) is mechanically coupled (via connecting components), the lifeline pretensioned between the plurality of fixed cable anchors ([0018], [0020], [0021]), wherein the hole is positioned a standoff distance from the mounting plate (fig 5C); and
an intermediate bracket (figure 5A, see below), the intermediate bracket mechanically coupled to the water tank (via mounting block 23), the intermediate bracket (figure 5A) including a cable guide (22, figure 5A) through which the lifeline (24) extends and may pass through (figure 5A), the intermediate bracket positioned between the plurality of fixed cable anchors (figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
310
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
488
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
535
791
media_image3.png
Greyscale
While Reynolds et al. only disclose one hole in the anchor plate to which the lifeline is mechanically coupled, examiner notes that providing a second hole would merely be an obvious duplication of parts. As explained in MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Duplication of Parts, the court has held “that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” In the instant application, providing more than one hole would result in providing more than one attachment point for a lifeline, which is hardly a new or unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pair of holes on the interplay, to which the lifeline can be mechanically coupled, should the lifeline path loop back around to the starting point, or to provide additional attachment points for additional lifelines. As for the limitation “side-by-side” it is noted that the addition a second hole on an anchor plate with no other features, the holes would ultimately be side by side.
While Reynolds et al. disclose the system for a vehicle having a water tank such as mining vehicles, a tanker truck, highway vehicles, or the like ([0016]), they do not specifically disclose use on a barge, with components welded or bolted directly to the bulkhead.
However, Aoki teaches: use of a fall arrest system (figure 1B) on a barge (figure 1A), wherein the anchors and brackets are welded or bolted directly to the bulked (W, figures 1A, 1B; see also page three of previously attached translation, third full paragraph, “support part 2c may be fixed to the wall surface part W (wall surface or aggregate) by welding, or may be fixed by a fastener such as a bolt”).
PNG
media_image4.png
300
711
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 fall arrest system of Reynolds et al. on any type of vehicle, including water-based vehicles such as barges/cargo ships, as taught by Aoki, with the anchor points welded or bolted directly to the bulkhead, so as to provide a securely attached fall arrest system for workers at elevation in any number of work environments, whether on land or at sea.
Reynolds et al. further discloses:
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the lifeline is a wire rope (figure 5A).
Reynolds et al. in view of Aoki result in:
5. The system of claim 1, further comprising an anchor point (Reynolds, 30; figure 6) mechanically coupled (Reynolds @32) to a deck of the barge (Reynolds figure 6/ Aoki figure 1B), the anchor point (Reynolds 30) including an attachment point (36).
6. The system of claim 5, wherein the attachment point of the anchor point comprises a swivel (Reynolds, rotation of davit; [0030]).
7. The system of claim 5, wherein the attachment point of the anchor point comprises a shackle (Reynolds, carabineer of rescue kit 40 that attaches to 36).
8. The system of claim 5, wherein the anchor point comprises a mounting plate (Reynolds 32) and an anchor bracket (Reynolds 33), the mounting plate (Reynolds 32) mechanically coupled to the deck of the barge (Reynolds figure 6), the anchor bracket (Reynolds 33) mechanically coupled to the mounting plate (Reynolds figure 6), wherein the attachment point (Reynolds 36) is coupled to the anchor bracket (Reynolds figure 6/ Aoki barge).
11. The system of claim 1, wherein the intermediate bracket (Reynolds figure 5A) comprises a mounting plate (Reynolds, 23; figure 5A, see below), the mounting plate directly mechanically coupled to the bulkhead (Reynolds, 23 is disclosed as “affixed” to water tank 12, Aoki teaches welding or bolting directly to the wall/mounting surface), the cable guide (Reynolds, 22) mechanically coupled to the mounting plate (Reynolds, figure 5A; combination of Reynolds in view of Aoki would incorporate bulkhead).
12. The system of claim 11, further comprising a guide plate (unnumbered vertical plate, see below, Reynolds), the guide plate mechanically coupled to the mounting plate of the intermediate bracket (Reynolds Figure 5Am, see below), the cable guide (22) mechanically coupled to the guide plate (Reynolds Figure 5A).
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the guide plate is mechanically coupled to the mounting plate of the intermediate bracket by a standoff (Reynolds, unnumbered plate between mounting plate and guide plate, see below), such that the cable guide is directly coupled to the guide plate (see below).
PNG
media_image5.png
399
651
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al. in view of Aoki as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Frauendorf (US 2010/0065370). Reynolds in view of Aoki does not teach comprising a fall safety area demarcation line, the fall safety area demarcation line positioned on the deck of the barge, the fall safety area demarcation line positioned a threshold distance from the periphery of the barge, the space between the fall safety area demarcation line and the periphery of the barge defining a fall safety area.
However, Frauendorf, teaches:
2 & 9: further comprising a fall safety area demarcation line (8, figure 1), the fall safety area demarcation line positioned on the deck of the barge (in this case the walking surface of the wing; figure 1), the fall safety area demarcation line positioned a threshold distance from the periphery of the barge/wing (figure 1), the space between the fall safety area demarcation line and the periphery of the barge defining a fall safety area (figure 1).
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the lifeline (2, figure 1) is positioned outside the fall safety area (figure 1).
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 fall arrest system of Reynolds with a fall safety area demarcation line, as taught by Frauendorf, so as to define a region which can be stepped on during maintenance work, but beyond which are regions which should not be stepped on as far as possible (Frauendorf ([0037]), so as to clearly identify safe work zones for the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 8, 2025, and entered with the RCE of January 15, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant primarily argues that the primary reference of Reynolds does not teach the newly added limitations in amended claim 1.
With respect to the limitation that the anchor plate includes “a pair of side-by-side holes to which the lifeline is mechanically coupled”, examiner notes that applicant argues that the prior art only teaches one hole, and claim 1 now requires two holes, but they do not specify why this would be anything more than duplication of parts. Additionally, it is unclear if the lifeline is mechanically coupled to both holes or just one. Specification [0004] recites that the “fixed cable anchor may include a hole to which the lifeline is mechanically coupled”, and [0024] recites that anchor plate 123 “may include one or more holes 125 positioned to allow lifeline 1152 coupled thereto.” Neither of these statements clarifies if the lifeline is attached to more than one hole, or if the addition of a second hole, or more, simply provides an additional attachment point for another lifeline that may be present. Additionally, the connection between the lifeline and the hole(s) is not shown in detail in any of the drawings to clarify this issue.
While Reynolds et al. only disclose one hole in the anchor plate to which the lifeline is mechanically coupled, examiner notes that providing a second hole would merely be an obvious duplication of parts. As explained in MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Duplication of Parts, the court has held “that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” In the instant application, providing more than one hole would result in providing more than one attachment point for a lifeline, which is hardly a new or unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pair of holes on the interplay, to which the lifeline can be mechanically coupled, should the lifeline path loop back around to the starting point, or to provide additional attachment points for additional lifelines. As for the limitation “side-by-side” it is noted that the addition a second hole on an anchor plate with no other features, the holes would ultimately be side by side. Examiner has cited multiple references on the attached PTO-892 that teach side by side holes on anchor plates for mechanical coupling of lifelines.
With respect to the added limitation that the anchor mounting plate is “welded or bolted directly to the bulkhead’, examiner notes that while this may not be clearly disclosed in Reynolds et al., the secondary reference of Aoki does teach wherein the anchors and brackets are welded or bolted directly to the bulked (W, figures 1A, 1B; see also page three of previously attached translation, third full paragraph, “support part 2c may be fixed to the wall surface part W (wall surface or aggregate) by welding, or may be fixed by a fastener such as a bolt”).
PNG
media_image4.png
300
711
media_image4.png
Greyscale
For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the claims remain rejected as advanced above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner has cited multiple references on the attached PTO-892 that teach side by side holes on anchor plates for mechanical coupling of lifelines.
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