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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show elements 32 in figure 3A as described in the specification. In figure 3A “32” points to a blank space on the persons body, there is no “end section” shown related to 32. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “each of the lag straps has a loop, through which the body strap is passed” (claim 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Figure 3a has loop element 37, but it is unclear and not shown as being part of the leg straps, nor does it show the body strap passed through it. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Regarding claim 1, “the leg straps surround the thighs of a person using the rescue device” is a positive recitation of human thighs. It is suggested that the claim is amended to read “each of the two leg straps are configured to surround a thigh of a person using the rescue device.”
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 5 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.
Regarding claim 5, two leg straps are already claimed in claim 1, it is unclear if these are intended to be additional leg straps or the same ones.
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, 2, 4, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Vonblon (2006/0175128) in view of Harris, Jr. (2012/0048646).
Regarding claims 1, Vonblon discloses, a rescue device (fig. 1) capable of rescuing a person (fig. 3 and 4) from a wind turbine, which comprises a parachute (11); a static line (4) capable of connecting to the wind turbine; and a harness ( strap system 9), which can be or is connected to the parachute, and which can be donned by the person to be rescued wherein the harness comprises two leg straps (17), but lack specifically disclosing the circumferential size is not variable.
Harris, teaches that it is known to use fixed circumference leg straps (at least 9 in fig.2) in a harness support system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the adjustable leg straps of Vonblon with fixed leg straps similar to Harris as it would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2141 III (B)). Further it would be obvious to use a fixed leg loops similar to Harris to improve safety by eliminating buckles/adjusters that could be left loose or unsecured in a crisis situation that requires fast decision.
Regarding claim 2, Vonblon discloses, a one-piece body strap (1).
Regarding claim 4, Vonblon discloses, the harness (9) can be adjusted to the body of the person to be rescued (“strap can be tightened if necessary” [0066] and fig. 9).
Regarding claims 6, as best understood, Vonblon discloses the harness (9) has a body strap (9) with two body strap sections (fig.1 shows a single rescue device the are several intersections, e.g. 17 and 19, and sections e.g. left, right, top, bottom, etc.), which intersect on a dorsal side.
Regarding claim 8, Vonblon discloses a body strap (9), the end sections of which can be moved to adjust (fig. 9) the harness to the body of the person to be rescued.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Vonblon discloses a body strap which comprises a connecting means (12 and 13; fig. 9), through which the chest strap sections can be connected to and detached from each other.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Vonblon (2006/0175128) in view of Harris, Jr. (2012/0048646) in further view of Hutchinson (3,973,643).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, the prior art as described previously fails to specifically disclose a loop through which the body strap passed.
Hutchinson, teaches that it is known to use a loop (at least 67 and 69) for attaching a leg section to a body strap.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the leg straps attachment of Harris with loop similar to Hutchinson as it would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2141 III (B)). Further it would be obvious to use a loop attachment as it would be allowed to slide for increase comfort.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vonblon (2006/0175128) in view of Harris, Jr. (2012/0048646) in view of Rosenblum (3,424,134).
Regarding claim 7, The combination discloses the device as previously described lacks the parachute connected at the point of intersection.
Rosenblum teaches that it is known in the art to connect the support (92) of a harness at the point of intersection (100; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the parachute of the combination at an intersection of the harness similar to Rosenblum to evenly distribute the load and therefore increase safety. It is further noted that the substitution of one know harness arrangement for another would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vonblon (2006/0175128) in view of Harris, Jr. (2012/0048646) in view of Rosenblum (3,424,134).
The examiners take s official notice that the use of impermeable to liquid and fire-retardant material are known for parachute packs.
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art us a pack impermeable to liquid and fire-retardent material to increase safety by making the device more robust and less likely to be damaged.
Claim(s)s 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vonblon (2006/0175128) in view of Harris, Jr. (2012/0048646) in view of Reinpold (9,656,758).
Regarding claims 12-14, Vonblon discloses the a means (“table leg” para. [0029]) and opening (“window” para. [0029]), but lacks specifically disclosing a wind turbine.
Reinpold teaches that it is known in the art use parachute recuse devices in wind turbines (at least column 1 line 61).
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the recuse device of Vonblon in a wind turbine similar to Rosenblum to provide safety to workers in high altitude wind turbine and also increase protentional customer base.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the leg loops being a fixed circumference 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. It is noted that Hlacia (3,176,793), Green (20060169534), Petzl (6,374,946), and Larson (5,289,590) all further teach that a fixed circumference leg loop is known in the art and could be used in place of Harris in the rejections above.
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 DANIEL TROY whose telephone number is (571)270-3742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
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.
/DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637