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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application Number: 18/146,857 filed on 12/27/27 has a total of 15 claims pending for examination; there is/are 1 independent claim(s) and 13 dependent claims, all of which are examined below.
Drawings
The drawing(s) have been reviewed by the examiner and are found comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.81 to 1.85.
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 1-2 and 4-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 1, the phrases “wherein the safety net is attached at one or more predefined connecting points on the side of the crane” (lines 3-4) and “a scaffold structural member securely attached to a side of the crane” (line 5), render the claim indefinite. Both phrases recite “the side” (line 4) and “a side” (line 5) that makes it unclear as to how the claim should be interpreted. It’s not clear if “a side” from line 5 is the same instance as “the side” from line 4 and as such they are both referring a same side instance or if “a side” from line 5 is referring to a new instance of a side that is separate/different and distinct from “the side” previously recited in line 4.
With regards to claims 2 and 4-15, due to their direct or indirect dependence from claim 1, they suffer from the same deficiencies and are rejected under the same rationale.
Due to the vagueness and a lack of clear definiteness in the claims, the claims have been treated on their merits as best understood by the examiner.
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(s) 1-2, 6, 8, 10-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 3,921,757 to Kennedy (hereinafter Kennedy).
With regards to claim 1, Kennedy teaches a crane fall protection system [figs 1-3 element 7] comprising:
a safety net [figs 1-3 element 34] configured to minimize damage or [note use of alternate language] harm to falling objects [column 1 line 40 to column 2 line 16] at or [note use of alternate language] around the base [figs 1-3 elements 6, 12] of a crane [figs 1-3 element 7], wherein the safety net [figs 1-3 element 34] is attached at one or [note use of alternate language] more predefined connecting points [figs 1-3 where the bottom of elements 14, 16 connect with element 12 or alternately column 3 lines 34-45 – attached using “plurality of metal rings] on the side [figs 1-3 flatbed side of elements 6] of the crane [figs 1-3 element 7]; and
a scaffold structural member [figs 1-3 elements 14, 16, 20, 22] securely attached to a side of the crane [figs 1-3 element 7, column 2 lines 54-61], wherein the scaffold structural member comprises structural units [figs 1-3 elements 14, 16, 20, 22] that combine to form a scaffold structure at the base [figs 1-3 elements 6, 12] of the crane [figs 1-3 element 7] that is configured to support the safety net [figs 1-3 element 34].
With regards to claim 2, Kennedy teaches the crane fall protection system of claim 1, wherein the scaffold structural member [figs 1-3 elements 14, 16, 20, 22] is configured to selectively deploy from a side of the crane when the crane is positioned within a building or construction site [column 4 line 34 to column 5 line 32 – deployment is as needed at a particular site].
With regards to claim 6, Kennedy teaches the crane fall protection system of claim 1, further comprising a tension wire [figs 1-3 element 52] configured to provide tensile support to the safety net and/or the scaffold structural member [column 4 lines 24-33].
With regards to claim 8, Kennedy teaches the crane fall protection system of claim 1, wherein the safety net [figs 1-3 element 34] is connected to the scaffold structural member [figs 1-3 elements 14, 16, 20, 22] or [note use of alternate language] vehicle at maximum predefined intervals [figs 1-3 element 34 – column 3 lines 34-45 – attached using “plurality of metal rings” in a manner that doesn’t allow for gaps between the structural members and the net so having a maximum predetermined interval due to such feature, otherwise gaps may allow a person to accidentally fall through said gap].
With regards to claim 10, Kennedy teaches the crane fall protection system of claim 1, wherein a height of scaffold structural member is selectively adjusted by an operator of the crane [figs 1-3 element 50 holds operator that controls movement of all elements – column 4 lines 13-23, 44-56].
With regards to claim 11, Kennedy teaches the crane fall protection system of claim 10, wherein the height of scaffold structural member [figs 1-3 elements 14, 16, 20, 22] is selectively adjusted to one or more predefined heights [column 4 lines 13-23, 44-56 – the operator extends or retracts the booms (adjustments) to heights beneath a person being rescued].
With regards to claim 12, Kennedy teaches the crane fall protection system of claim 10, wherein the structural units [figs 1-3 elements 14, 16, 20, 22] of scaffold structural member include horizontal structural units [figs 1-3 elements 20, 22] and vertical structural units [figs 1-3 elements 14, 16], wherein the horizontal structural units and vertical structural units are telescopingly connected [figs 1-3 elements 14, 16 – column 2 line 56, column 4 lines 45-48] to enable the height of scaffold structural member to be selectively adjusted without having to disconnect or detach any structural units from the crane [column 4 lines 13-23, 44-56].
With regards to claim 14, Kennedy teaches the crane fall protection system of claim 1, further comprising one or more air inflatable units [figs 1-3 element 48 – column 4 line 5] positioned underneath the safety net [figs 1-3 element 34].
With regards to claim 15, Kennedy teaches the crane fall protection system of claim 1, wherein the safety net is mounted to one or more outriggers [figs 1-3 elements 11 – column 2 lines 49-52] of the crane [figs 1-3 element 7].
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 3,921,757 to Kennedy (hereinafter Kennedy) in view of US Patent No. 6,003,633 to Rolson (hereinafter Rolson).
With regards to claim 4, Kennedy teaches the crane fall protection system of claim 1, wherein the safety net [figs 1-3 element 34] includes an aperture [figs 1-3 elements 42] configured to provide egress access to a user.
Kennedy teaches all of the above but is silent as to the safety net being configured to provide access to a ladder attached to the crane.
However, Rolston teaches on a vehicle [Rolson fig 1 element 10] providing access to a ladder [Rolson fig 1 element 20] attached to said vehicle [Rolson fig 1 element 10] for the benefit of facilitating a user easy access to the ground or the vehicle [Rolson column 1 lines 7-54].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kennedy and Rolson to have the safety net be configured to provide access to a ladder [Rolson fig 1 element 20] attached to the crane [Rolson fig 1 element 10] for the benefit of facilitating a user easy access to the ground [Rolson column 1 lines 7-54].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 3,921,757 to Kennedy (hereinafter Kennedy) in view of US Patent No. 5,941,798 to Coan et al. (hereinafter Coan).
With regards to claim 5, Kennedy is silent as to the crane fall protection system of claim 4, wherein the aperture comprises a door flap integrally formed within the safety net.
However, Coan teaches a safety net [Coan figs 1-2, 7-8 element 40] having an aperture door flap [Coan figs 1-2, 7-8 element 40] integrally formed within the safety net [Coan figs 1-2, 7-8 element 40] for the benefit of providing easy ingress and egress access to the other side of the safety net.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kennedy and Coan to have the aperture comprise a door flap [Coan figs 1-2, 7-8 element 40] integrally formed within the safety net [Coan figs 1-2, 7-8 element 40] for the benefit of providing easy ingress and egress access to the other side of the safety net.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 3,921,757 to Kennedy (hereinafter Kennedy).
With regards to claim 9. Kennedy teaches all of the above but is silent as to the crane fall protection system of claim 8, wherein the maximum predefined intervals comprise 4-foot intervals.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the maximum predefined intervals comprise 4-foot intervals for the benefit of minimizing safety net gaps to prevent objects or users falling through said gaps.
With regards to claim 13. The crane fall protection system of claim 1, wherein the structural units [figs 1-3 elements 14, 16, 20, 22] of scaffold structural member include horizontal structural units [figs 1-3 elements 20, 22] and vertical structural units [figs 1-3 elements 14, 16].
Kennedy teaches all of the above but is silent as to wherein the horizontal structural units are integrally formed with the safety net.
However, it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of a structure of multiple pieces would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the horizontal structural units [figs 1-3 elements 20, 22] be integrally formed with the safety net figs 1-3 element 34] for the benefit of providing a smooth, uniform and gapless safety net surface for better absorbing the impact of falling objects versus one that’s only attached at certain intervals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 7, the prior art alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest the crane fall protection system of claim 6, further comprising one or more outriggers pads placed underneath feet of outriggers of the crane, wherein the tension wire is attached to at least one of the one or more outrigger pads to anchor the tension wire underneath the weight of the crane, in combination with the other limitations found in the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s Arguments directed to the Kennedy reference, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
A scaffold structural member by definition is just a structure that provides a support. Kennedy teaches elements 14 and 16 being structures that provide support. The claims also call for the scaffold structural support being attached to a side of the crane. Elements 14 and 16 are shown to be attached to the flatbed side of the crane. Furthermore, elements 14 and 16 are telescopic and are each made up of at least 4 subsections (see fig 2-3) and thus each is comprised of a plurality of structural units. Elements 14 and 16 are also shown to support the safety net element 34.
Even further, Kennedy teaches wherein the safety net [figs 1-3 element 34] is attached at one or [note use of alternate language] more predefined connecting points [figs 1-3 where the bottom of elements 14, 16 connect with element 12 or alternately column 3 lines 34-45 – attached using “plurality of metal rings] on the side [figs 1-3 flatbed side of elements 6] of the crane [figs 1-3 element 7] as shown above. The claim language does not call for the safety net being directly attached to a side of the crane so the safety net being indirectly attached still anticipates the claim language. Also, the claim language isn’t specific as to which side of the crane anything is attached to so anything connected to the flatbed side of the crane also anticipates the claim language.
Due to the above, claims 1-2,4-6 and 8-15 stand rejected.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 5, last paragraph, filed 12/29/25, with respect to claims 1-3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3 in view of the Liu reference has been withdrawn.
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 DAVID E MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4152. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm.
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 P Cahn can be reached on (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.
DEM
/DAVID E MARTINEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634