DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LeBeau (PGPub US 2018/0347665 A1).
Regarding claim 20, LeBeau teaches a length adjustment device for combined use with a lanyard (140) having an anchoring end (100) equipped with a coupler for anchored attachment to an anchor point ([0033] ln 1-2), and an opposing tail end (130), said length adjustment device comprising: a frame (120); and a slidable bollard (233) for wrapped engagement thereof by the lanyard at an intermediate region thereof between the anchoring and tail ends of said lanyard (Fig 2E), said slidable bollard (233) being slidably coupled to the frame and displaceable back and forth relative thereto between a holding position (Fig 2F) clamping the intermediate region of the lanyard against a stationary feature (229) on the frame to impart a hold between the device and the lanyard to prevent relative displacement therebetween ([0038] ln 1-7), and an adjustment position (Fig 2E) withdrawn further away from said stationary feature (229) to release said hold and allow said displacement ([0045] ln 7-11), thereby enabling adjustment of a working length of the lanyard between the anchoring end thereof and the device ([0038] ln 12-18).
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.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangels (US Patent 3,930,290) in view of Smith (US Patent 2,010,277).
Regarding claim 16, Mangels discloses a connection device for connecting a load to a flexible line, said device comprising a singular assembly whose components comprise: a frame (25); a line engagement component for receiving said flexible line and holding the device thereto (37); a gate (31) movably supported on the frame and movable relative thereto between a closed position (Col. 4 ln 23-33) in which said gate cooperates with at least one other of the components to collectively form a closed boundary around an eye space, and an open position (Col. 3 ln 43-64) that opens up a gap in said closed boundary to enable insertion of a securement member of an intended load into the eye space such that reclosure of the gate secures said intended load to the device; a lock (35) movably supported on the frame and movable relative thereto between a locking position engaging and holding the gate in the closed position (Col. 4 ln 23-33), and an unlocking position disengaged from the gate to allow movement thereof to the open position (Col. 3 ln 62-68); and a quick release (35) operably associated with the lock (35) to normally hold the lock in the locking position, absent user-actuation of said quick-release (Col. 4 ln 1-3). Mangels does not teach multiple actuators for the quick release.
However, Smith discloses a lanyard connection device wherein the quick release comprises multiple actuators (24) that require simultaneous actuation thereof to release the lock from the locking position (Col. 2 ln 43-55). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to combine the connection device of Mangels with the addition of the quick release of Smith that includes multiple actuators to prevent accidental release of the gate and lock mechanism.
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 16 as described above, and Smith further teaches said multiple actuators (24) comprise two actuators disposed at opposing sides of the device (Col. 2 ln 27-33).
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 16 as described above, and Smith further teaches the quick release comprises a slider (18) slidably coupled to the frame and displaceable back and forth relative thereto along a slide path from a default position holding the lock in the locking position, toward a release position (Col. 2 ln 36-55).
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 16 as described above, and Smith further teaches the multiple actuators (24) are configured to require performance of multiple and distinct actuating movements thereon to actuate the quick release (Col. 2 ln 36-55).
Claims 1-2 & 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBeau (PGPub US 2018/0347665 A1) in view of Mangels.
Regarding claim 1, LeBeau teaches a lanyard connection device for combined use with a lanyard (140) having an anchoring end (100) equipped with a coupler for anchored attachment to an anchor point ([0033] ln 1-2), and an opposing tail end (130), said connection device comprising a singular assembly whose components comprise: a frame (120) and a length adjuster (230) configured for engagement with the lanyard (140) at an intermediate region thereof between the anchoring (100) and tail ends (130) thereof, and manipulatable between a holding state imparting a hold between the device and the lanyard to prevent relative displacement therebetween ([0038] ln 1-7), and an adjustment state releasing said hold to allow said displacement ([0045] ln 7-11), thereby enabling adjustment of a working length of the lanyard between the anchoring end thereof and the device ([0038] ln 12-18). LeBeau does not teach a gate and lock assembly or a quick release.
However, the connection device of Mangels discloses a gate (31) movably supported on the frame and movable relative thereto between a closed position in which said gate cooperates with at least one other of the components to collectively form a closed boundary around an eye space (Col. 4 ln 23-33; Fig 3), and an open position that opens up a gap in said closed boundary to enable insertion of a securement member of an intended load into the eye space (Col. 3 ln 62-68) such that reclosure of the gate secures said intended load to the device; a lock (35) movably supported on the frame and movable relative thereto between a locking position engaging and holding the gate in the closed position (Col. 4 ln 23-33), and an unlocking position disengaged form the gate to allow movement thereof to the open position (Col. 3 ln 62-68); a quick release (35) operably associated with the lock to normally hold the lock in the locking position, absent user-actuation of said quick-release (Col. 4 ln 1-3). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the lanyard connection device of LeBeau with the addition of the gate and lock assembly of Mangels that includes a quick release to prevent accidental release.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described above, and Mangels further teaches a lanyard connection device where the lock comprises a rocker arm (35) pivotably mounted (36) to the frame (25) and pivotably between said locking and unlocking position (Col 3 ln 65-68). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the lanyard connection device of LeBeau with the addition of a rocker arm pivotably mounted to the frame to create a stronger lock.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, and LeBeau further teaches the length adjuster (130) is configured to automatically engage itself in the holding state under application of a pulling load to the device at the eye space thereof ([0038] ln 1-7).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, and LeBeau further teaches the length adjuster comprises a slidable bollard (233) slidably coupled to the frame (120) and displaceable back and forth relative thereto between a holding position (Fig 2C) clamping the intermediate region of the lanyard against a stationary feature on the frame to impart said hold ([0038] ln 1-7), and an adjustment position (Fig 2D) withdrawn further away from said stationary feature to release said hold ([0045] ln 7-11).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 11 as described above, and LeBeau further teaches the sliding bollard (233) is slidable back and forth on a bollard slide path that runs in a longitudinal direction of the device in which the sliding bollard and the bollard slide path are also spaced from the eye space (Fig 2C), and the stationary feature (229) of the frame resides near an end of the bollard slide path furthest from the eye space (Fig 2F), such that exertion of a longitudinal pulling load on the device at the eye space thereof in a pulling direction away from the sliding bollard acts to automatically clamp the lanyard against the stationary feature ([0039] ln 15-18).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 12 as described above, and LeBeau further teaches a lanyard opening (236) for accommodating routing of the lanyard to and around the sliding bollard (233), wherein the lanyard opening and the eye space reside distally opposite one another in said longitudinal direction of the device (Fig 2E).
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, and LeBeau further teaches the length adjuster is configured to intentionally allow limited slippage between the device and the lanyard under application of a shock load that exceeds a predetermined limit. The use of a friction connection in LeBeau, intentionally allows for slippage as it is known that at some point the friction connection will be overcome.
Claims 3-9 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBeau & Mangels in view of Smith (US Patent 2,010,277).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, and Smith further teaches the quick release comprises a slider (18) slidably coupled to the frame and displaceable back and forth relative thereto along a slide path from a default position holding the lock in the locking position, toward a release position (Col 2 ln 43-55). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination lanyard connecting device with the addition of the slider mechanism of Smith to prevent accidental release of the lock and improve user ergonomics (Col. 1, ln 10-20).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 3 as described above, and Smith further teaches a portion of the lock is constrained to the slider for movement therewith back and forth along the slide path (Col 2 ln 43-55).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 3 as described above, and Smith further teaches the slider comprises two push-button actuators (24) that reside at opposing sides of the slider (Col. 2 ln 27-33) in normally undepressed positions that lock the slider in the default position, and are depressible to depressed positions allowing displacement of the slider from the default position toward the release position (Col. 2 ln 43-56).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches all limitations of claim 2 as described above, and Smith further teaches a lanyard connection device wherein the quick release comprises a slider (18) slidably coupled to the frame and displaceable back and forth relative thereto (Col 2 ln 27-33), and one end of the rocker arm is constrained to the slider for movement therewith back and forth along the slide path. One in the art would recognize the combination of a release slider mechanism and rocker arm assembly requires contact to function and therefore the rocker arm is constrained to the slider. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination lanyard connection device with the addition the slider mechanism of Smith to prevent accidental release of the lock and allow faster unlocking by user (Col. 1, ln 10-20).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, and Smith further teaches the quick release comprises multiple actuators (24) that require simultaneous actuation to release the lock from the locking position (Col. 2 ln 43-56). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the combination lanyard connecting device with the addition of sliding quick release system of Smith, requiring simultaneous actuation to prevent accidental release of the lock and improve user ergonomics (Col. 1, ln 10-20).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 7 as described above, and Smith further teaches said multiple actuators comprise two actuators disposed at opposing sides of the device (Col. 2 ln 27-33).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 8 as described above, and Smith further teaches said two actuators comprise two push-button actuators (24) that require simultaneous depression toward one another to release the lock from the locking position (Col. 2 ln 43-56).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 7 as described above, and Smith further teaches the multiple actuators (24) are configured to require performance of multiple and distinct actuating movements thereon to actuate the quick release (Col. 2 ln 43-56).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RALPH D WILKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6183. The examiner can normally be reached 8 – 4, M-Fr.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/RALPH D WILKINSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654