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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The Examiner notes that “a means for preventing rotation of the displacement member” are being interpreted to be
“Means for preventing rotation of the displacement member may comprise of the displacement member having a head comprising at least two sides such as three, four, five, six, seven or eight sides with the displacement chamber being mutually shaped.
In another embodiment, the means for preventing rotation of the displacement member may comprise of the displacement member having a substantially toothed wheel shaped head with the displacement chamber being mutually shaped.
In a further embodiment, the means for preventing rotation of the displacement member may comprise the displacement member having an oval-shaped head with the displacement chamber being mutually shaped.
The means for preventing rotation may be a rod extending through an elongated channel in the displacement member.” as in page 6 of the immediate specification, or equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 term “substantially” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “substantially” is defined as “consisting of or relating to substance” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” the target any more.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1:
Line 8 recites, “(14); and” and should likely read, “; and” as the other indicia have been removed from the claims.
Line 9 recites, “at least one test unit including” and should likely read, “at least one test unit including:”.
Lines 12-13 recite, “wherein the first displacement member at the extended position engage the anchor surface” and should likely read, “wherein the first displacement member at the extended position engages the anchor surface”.
Regarding claim 13:
Line 11 recites, “anchor unit (10) relative to the anchor surface” and should likely read “anchor unit relative to the anchor surface” as the other indicia have been removed from the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by King et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0014095 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
664
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
640
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, King et al. discloses a person anchor unit (210, 220) for person fall safety (Fig. 1) by attaching to a magnetizable anchor surface (200), the person anchor unit comprising: a connection side (Fig. 2, created by 310, 320, and 200) including a connection surface (320) configured and arranged to face an anchor surface (200);
an anchor point (330), the anchor point is configured and arranged for attaching a safety line (1010);
one or more permanent magnets (310) positioned at or near the connection surface (14); and
at least one test unit (364, 362) including
a first displacement member (362) configured and arranged to be displaceable between a retracted position and an extended position (Fig. 2; indicated by “DISENGAGED” and “ENGAGED” respectively), wherein the first displacement member at the extended position engage the anchor surface (Fig. 2), and
a tool connection point (350, [0035]) mechanically linked to the first displacement member, wherein the tool connection point is configured and arranged to actuate and thereby cause displacement of the first displacement member between the retracted position and the extended position ([0035]).
Regarding claim 2, King et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the at least one test unit includes two or more test units (210, 220; the Examiner notes there are two magnetic points with two test units for the entirety of the device).
Regarding claim 3, King et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above,
wherein the at least one test unit further includes a tool gear ([0031] “In one embodiment, the drive screw actuator (364) has a servo motor and gear box that is geared down to create high torque on the output shaft” and a first displacement gear (the gear attached to the drive screw 362) being interconnected, the tool gear further connected to the tool connection point (364),
wherein the first displacement member is configured and arranged to be displaceably connected to the first displacement gear (Fig. 2) and rotating of the first displacement gear causes displacement of the first displacement member (Fig. 2, [0034]).
Regarding claim 5, King et al. discloses all of claim 3 as above,
wherein the at least one test unit further includes a second displacement gear ([0020], “one or more attachment magnets” which are shown to have a central bore that the drive screws 362 extend through and are driven by the drive screw actuator that has a gear box [0031]) connected to the tool gear ([0031]), and a second displacement member (a second magnet, disclosed in [0020]) configured and arranged to be displaceably connected to the second displacement gear (Fig. 2),
wherein the second displacement gear is configured and arranged when rotated to displace (Fig. 2) the second displacement member between the retracted position and extended position, wherein the second displacement member is configured and arranged to engage the anchor surface in the extended position (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, King et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the at least one test unit includes a first displacement chamber (350, the cylinder that allows the magnet to move between the ENGAGED and DISENGAGED position), wherein a part of the first displacement member is configured and arranged to be displaceable and positioned within the first displacement chamber (Fig. 2), the first displacement chamber and the first displacement being complementarily shaped to prevent rotation of the first displacement member (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, King et al. discloses all of claim 6 as above, wherein the first displacement member includes a first flange (Fig. 2, either the S pole of the magnetic member or the N pole of the magnetic member) extending substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis defined by the displacement member (362), wherein the first flange is configured and arranged to engage the first displacement chamber to prevent rotation of the displacement member (the displacement member in contained by the displacement chamber and fixed by the drive screw, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, King et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the person anchor unit includes a shock absorber ([0021], “a rubber coating”) connected to the anchor point.
Regarding claim 9, King et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein at least one of the at least one test unit includes a hydraulic system ([0035]) configured and arranged to be actuated through the tool connection point for displacement of the first displacement ([0035]).
Regarding claim 11, King et al. discloses a kit (Fig. 1) comprising
a person anchor unit according to claim 1 as above; and
a tool adapted to connect to the tool connection point ([0035])
Regarding claim 12, King et al. discloses all of claim 11 as above, wherein the tool is a torque wrench (“mechanical advantage worker bar”, [0035]).
Regarding claim 13, King et al. discloses a method for testing connection strength between an anchor surface (200) comprising magnetizable material ([0005], the Examiner notes that the attachment system is magnetic and would only attach to a similarly “magnetizable” or paramagnetic/magnetic surface) and a person anchor unit comprising one or more permanent magnets (310) and a displacement member (362), the method including the following steps;
attaching the person anchor unit to the anchor surface (Fig. 2, “DISENGAGED”);
displacing the displacement member towards the anchor surface (Fig. 2, “ENGAGED”);
applying a threshold force being equal to an approved connection strength to the displacement member simultaneously to displacing the displacement member ([0059], “Next, the attachment strength of the primary and secondary magnetic anchors (300, 1300) are tested by applying a predetermined test load to the primary and secondary magnetic anchors (300, 1300) with the interconnection load system (910).”); and
testing whether the displacement member causes displacement of the person anchor unit (10) relative to the anchor surface ([0059], “During the primary and secondary magnetic anchor (300, 1300) attachment strength test, sensors may be used to detect movement of at least one of the primary magnetic anchor (300) and/or the secondary magnetic anchor (300). The status of acceptable attachment strength or failure of the load system test can be indicated by status lights on the primary and secondary attachment magnetic anchors (300, 1300)”).
Regarding claim 14, King et al. discloses all of claim 13 as above, when a displacement force is below the threshold force (the Examiner notes that these steps are not strictly required by the claim as there are instances when the displacement force is not “below the threshold force”), the method further includes the steps of
removing the person anchor unit from the anchor surface ([0050], the Examiner notes that the manner of testing (applying a test load) would cause the anchor to be removed from the surface in the event of “slippage” or failure);
re-attaching the person anchor unit to the anchor surface at a different position ([0050]);
repeating the steps of displacing the displacement member, applying threshold force and testing for displacement ([0064], “After verifying the connection quality of the primary magnetic anchor (300) to the work structure (200),”).
Regarding claim 15, King et al. discloses all of claim 13 as above.
wherein the person anchor unit further includes
a connection side (Fig. 2, created by 310, 320, and 200) including a connection surface (320) facing an anchor surface (200) the anchor surface including magnetizable material ([0005] the Examiner notes that the attachment system is magnetic and would only attach to a similarly “magnetizable” or paramagnetic/magnetic surface)
an anchor point (330), the anchor point is configured and arranged for attaching a safety line (1010);
one or more permanent magnets (310) positioned at or near the connection surface; and
at least one test unit (364, 362) including
a first displacement member (362) configured and arranged to be displaceable between a retracted position and an extended position (Fig. 2; indicated by “DISENGAGED” and “ENGAGED” respectively), wherein the first displacement member at the extended position engage the anchor surface (Fig. 2), and
a tool connection point (350, [0035]) mechanically linked to the first displacement member, wherein the tool connection point is configured and arranged to actuate and thereby cause displacement of the first displacement member between the retracted position and the extended position ([0035]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, King et al. discloses all of claim 3 as above.
However, neither King et al. nor any of the prior art of record teach or suggest, “wherein the first displacement gear includes a first central bore and the first displacement member extends through the first central bore, wherein the first central bore and the first displacement member are complementarily threaded, and wherein the at least one test unit further includes a comprises means for preventing rotation of the displacement member.”
Regarding claim 10, King et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above.
However, neither King et al. nor any of the prior art of record teach or suggest, “the first displacement member includes a first head with a color, wherein the first head is visible in the retracted position.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image3.png
438
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2013/0320686 A1 discloses a magnetic lifting device.
PNG
media_image4.png
298
302
media_image4.png
Greyscale
WO 2010/088476 A2 discloses a magnetic safety pole.
PNG
media_image5.png
218
248
media_image5.png
Greyscale
KR 20090038415 A discloses an electromotion wrench.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571)-270-3508. 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745