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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 7, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
1. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “19” has been used to designate both “the user’s harness” and “the rolling axis”.
2. The drawings do not identify/ provide reference numerals for the following claimed components: the cradle body of claim 26. While the drawings use reference numeral 10 for the cradle, and 11 and 12 for the contact surface rings, there is no identifier for what the “cradle body” comprises and if it is any different from the overall cradle identifier 10.
3. The drawings do not identify/ provide reference numerals for the following claimed components: the body, the first half of the body, the second half of the body, the first aperture which is configured for passage of the connector mechanism, and a first contact ring and second contact ring connected to the body of at least claims 3, 14, and 15.
3. 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 embodiment of independent claims 3, 14 and 15 and their dependent claims) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). More specifically, an exoskeleton comprising a body having a first half, a second half, and a first contact surface ring and a second contact surface ring connected to the body. Figures 1-3 appear to depict an exoskeleton having first (11) and second (12) surface contact rings; and Figures 4-5 appear to depict an exoskeleton/shell comprising a body without contact rings; and Figures 6-7 appears to depict an exoskeleton/shell with a single contact ring. None of the figures appear to fully depict an embodiment comprising all of the claimed components and features as claimed in independent claims 3, 14 and 15.
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 Objections
Claims 10 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: it appears the term “supporting structure” in each of claims 10 and 21 should be changed to “external surface” to reflect the amendments to claim 3 and 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-17, 19-25, 28-29, 32 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The embodiment of independent claims 3, 14 and 15 (and therefore also their respective dependent claims) do not appear to be fully disclosed in the written description, or depicted in the figures as explained above. More specifically, there does not appear to be clear written description of an exoskeleton comprising a body having a first half, a second half as well as a first contact surface ring and a second contact surface ring connected to the body.
Figures 1-3 and the corresponding written description are directed to an exoskeleton having first (11) and second (12) surface contact rings, which correspond to claims 1-2, 26 and 30; Figures 4-5 and the corresponding written description appear directed to a case 20 with contact surfaces but is not disclosed as also including contact surface rings; and Figures 6-7 appears to depict a case 30 with a single contact ring (34) creating a single contact surface (figure 7), but does not include a second contact surface ring. In summary, the disclosure does not appear to fully disclose an embodiment comprising all of the claimed components and features as claimed in independent claims 3, 14 and 15 and their independent claims. It appears these claims are mixing features from different disclosed embodiments.
With respect to new claims 33-35, examiner does not see where in the original written description there is support for some the newly added limitations the claims.
With respect to new claim 33 examiner does not see where in the original disclosure it is described that the first and second surface contact rings contact and stably rest on the external surface under the weight of the exoskeleton and the retractable fall arrestor without additional support.
With respect to new claim 34 examiner does not see where it is described in the original written description that the lifeline passes through the second surface contact ring but not the first surface contact ring. The arrangement of lifeline inside the exoskeleton is never shown or described.
With respect to new claim 35 examiner does not see where it is described wherein the first aperture and the second aperture are each configured to be elevated above the external surface when the first contact surface ring and the second contact surface ring rest on the external surface, such that the connector passes through the first aperture without contacting the external surface and the lifeline passes through the second aperture without contacting the external surface.
No new matter should be added when addressing the above rejections.
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) 1-10, 15-21, 24 and 26-33 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 2000-0018193 (KR ‘193), as best understood considering the above rejections and objections.
KR ‘193 discloses:
An exoskeleton (40) for a retractable fall arrestor (intended use/ not positively claimed), the exoskeleton comprising:
a first contact surface ring defining a first aperture and having a first diameter (see below); and
a second contact surface ring defining a second aperture and having a second diameter different from the first diameter (see below);
wherein the first contact surface ring and second contact surface ring each comprise a closed curve (both the rings are circles, which are closed curves)
wherein the exoskeleton (40) is configured to rest on an external surface, and to roll on the external surface around an arcuate path of a specific radius about a rolling axis extending through the first aperture and the second aperture (capable of; axis following the same path as cable 70);
wherein the exoskeleton is configured for both the first contact surface ring and the second contact surface ring (as identified below) to be in contact with the external surface when the retractable fall arrestor is resting on the ground (capable of; when the body is positioned angled on its side [additional figure inserted below] such that the two contact rings are contacting a surface; note how the first contact ring protrudes outward from the body, which would elevate the conical portion up from the surface, allowing for the two contact rings to roll on a surface; see further remarks in Response to Arguments).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
572
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2. The exoskeleton of claim 1, wherein the exoskeleton is configured to hold the retractable fall arrestor (see above) when the retractable fall arrestor is installed such that the retractable fall arrestor rotates about the rolling axis (capable of; axis following the same path as cable 70).
27. The exoskeleton of claim 1, wherein the first contact surface ring and the second contact surface ring are geometric sections of the exoskeleton (see above).
31. The exoskeleton of claim 1, wherein the surface is a substantially planar surface (see annotated image above with surface included).
33. The exoskeleton of claim 1, wherein the exoskeleton is configured so that the first and second surface contact rings contact and stably rest on the external surface under the weight of the exoskeleton and the retractable fall arrestor without additional support (see image above; note also that the retractable fall arrestor is not positively claimed and the exoskeleton 40 is certainly capable of having a retractable fall arrestor placed inside and sitting in a low enough position such that it doesn’t tip over).
3. An exoskeleton for a retractable fall arrestor (see above), the exoskeleton comprising:
a body (40) comprising a first half (cylindrical portion of body) connected to a second half (conical portion of body),
a first contact surface ring (see above) connected to the body having a first diameter (see above);
a second contact surface ring (see above) connected to the body having a second diameter (see above), wherein the second diameter is different from the first diameter (see above);
a first end defining a first aperture (opening at either end of the body) and
a second end defining a second aperture (opening at opposing end of the body);
wherein the exoskeleton is configured for both the first contact surface ring and the second contact surface ring to be in contact with an external surface when the retractable fall arrestor (not positively claimed) is resting on the external surface (capable of; when the body is positioned angled on its side [additional figure inserted above] such that the two contact rings are contacting a surface; note how the first contact ring protrudes outward from the body, which would elevate the conical portion up from the surface, allowing for the two contact rings to roll on an external surface; it is also once again noted that he fall arrestor is not positively included in the claim; see further remarks in Response to Arguments).
4. The exoskeleton of claim 3, wherein the exoskeleton is configured to hold the retractable fall arrestor (see above).
5. The exoskeleton of claim 4, further comprising
a connector mechanism (cable);
wherein the first aperture (@conical end) is configured for passage of the connector mechanism (cable) for connecting the retractable fall arrestor to a structural anchor (20 @ end of cable 70 can connect to a structural anchor).
6. The exoskeleton of claim 5, wherein the exoskeleton is configured to rotate around the structural anchor while resting on the first contact surface ring and the second contact surface ring (capable of; axis following the same path as cable 70).
7. The exoskeleton of claim 4, wherein the second aperture is configured for passage of a lifeline (70) extending from the retractable fall arrestor (see above; note that claim 7 depends from 4 separately from claims 5 and 6, so the aperture at the second ring can be both the first aperture in claim 5 and the second aperture in claim 7).
8. The exoskeleton of claim 3, wherein the first contact surface ring comprises a first contact surface and the second contact surface ring comprises a second contact surface (see above).
9. The exoskeleton of claim 8, wherein the exoskeleton is configured to roll on the first and second contact surfaces (capable of; axis following the same path as cable 70).
10. The exoskeleton of claim 8, wherein the exoskeleton is configured to roll on a supporting structure only on the first and second contact surfaces without other exoskeleton structures touching the supporting structure (capable of; when the body is positioned angled on its side such that the two contact rings are contacting the surface neither the cylindrical body portion or the angled conical portion would touch the surface; note how the first contact ring protrudes outward from the body, which would elevate the conical portion up from the surface).
28. The exoskeleton of claim 3, wherein the first contact surface ring and the second contact surface ring are geometric sections of the body (see above).
15. A system for preventing injuries from a fall, comprising:
a fall arrest device (see below) comprising a connector (frame and lid with connecting ring, 30, 31, 60) configured for connection to a structure and a lifeline (70) configured to support a user in case of a fall;
an exoskeleton (40) comprising:
a first contact surface ring having a first diameter (see below);
a second contact surface ring having a second diameter (see below), wherein the second diameter is different from the first diameter (see below), wherein the first contact surface ring and second contact surface ring each comprise a closed curve (both the rings are circles, which are closed curves), and wherein the first contact surface ring and the second contact surface ring are configured to roll on an external surface (capable of; when the body is positioned angled on its side such that the two contact rings are contacting the surface; note how the first contact ring protrudes outward from the body, which would elevate the conical portion up from the surface, allowing for the two contact rings to roll on a surface),
a body (40) comprising a first half (cylindrical portion of 40) connected to a second half (conical portion of 40),
a first end defining a first aperture (opening at one end of the body); and
a second end defining a second aperture (opening at opposing end of body),
wherein the first aperture is configured for passage of the connector beyond the exoskeleton (note how 31 extends beyond aperture of exoskeleton) and the second aperture is configured for passage of the lifeline beyond the exoskeleton (70; see below);
wherein the first contact surface ring and the second contact surface ring are connected to or integral with the body (see below),
wherein the exoskeleton is configured to hold the fall arrest device (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
572
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
388
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
16. The exoskeleton of claim 15, wherein the first aperture (opening of cylindrical body that receives fall arrest device) is configured for passage of the connector (30, 31, 60), wherein the connector connects the fall arrest device to a structural anchor on the structure (via 10, see above).
17. The exoskeleton of claim 16, wherein the exoskeleton is configured to rotate around the structural anchor while resting on the first contact surface ring and the second contact surface ring (capable of; axis following the same path as cable 70).
19. The exoskeleton of claim 15, wherein the first contact surface ring comprises a first contact surface and the second contact surface ring comprises a second contact surface (see above).
20. The exoskeleton of claim 19, wherein the exoskeleton is configured to roll on the first and second contact surfaces (capable of; axis following the same path as cable 70).
21. The exoskeleton of claim 19, wherein the exoskeleton is configured to roll on a supporting structure only on the first and second contact surfaces without other exoskeleton structures touching the supporting structure (capable of; when the body is positioned angled on its side such that the two contact rings are contacting the surface neither the cylindrical body portion or the angled conical portion would touch the surface; note how the first contact ring protrudes outward from the body, which would elevate the conical portion up from the surface).
24. The exoskeleton of claim 15, wherein the exoskeleton is configured to substantially surround the fall arrest device (see above).
29. The system of claim 15, wherein the first contact surface ring and the second contact surface ring are geometric sections of the exoskeleton (see above).
32. The system of claim 15, wherein the surface is a substantially planar surface (see annotated image above with surface included).
35. The system of claim 15, wherein the first aperture (aperture that receives 60) and the second aperture (at conical end) are each configured to be elevated above the external surface when the first contact surface ring and the second contact surface ring rest on the external surface (contact surface rings space the apertures from surface as shown in position above), such that the connector passes through the first aperture without contacting the external surface (none of 30, 31 or 60 contact the ground surface for example) and the lifeline (70) passes through the second aperture without contacting the external surface (capable of as this is dependent on multiple variable factors including the supporting surface angle and/or interruptions, the direction of 70 after exiting and the manner in which 31 is secured to the structural anchor).
26. A cradle for a fall arrest device, the cradle comprising:
a cradle body (40);
a first contact surface (see below) having a first diameter (see below), the first contact surface being connected to or integral with the cradle body (40);
a second contact surface having a second diameter different from the first diameter (see below), the second contact surface being connected to or integral with the cradle body (40);
wherein the first contact surface and second contact surface each comprise a closed curve (both the first contact surface and second contact surface are rings, which are circles, which are closed curves),
wherein the cradle is configured to roll around an arcuate path on an external surface (capable of/ see below; axis following the same path as cable 70),
wherein the cradle (40) is configured to rest on the external surface (see below), and for both the first contact surface and the second contact surface to be in contact with the external surface when the retractable fall arrestor is resting on the external surface (capable of; when the body is positioned angled on its side [additional figure inserted below] such that the two contact rings are contacting a surface; note how the first contact ring protrudes outward from the body, which would elevate the conical portion up from the surface, allowing for the two contact rings to roll on an external surface; it is also once again noted that he fall arrestor is not positively included in the claim; see further remarks in Response to Arguments).
30.The cradle of claim 26, wherein the first contact surface and the second contact surface are geometric sections of the cradle body (see above).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
572
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 12 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘193, alone. While KR ‘193 does not disclose how the first and second halves of the body are assembled, the examiner notes that claims 12 and 23 are product by process claims and have been treated accordingly. Examiner refers to MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims, wherein it is explained that determination of patentability is based on the product itself, and does not depend on its method of production.
Whether the body of KR’193 is assembled by mating molds, riveting, adhesive, or other method, the end product is still capable of receiving a fall arrestor and the function is not disturbed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assemble the first and second halves of the body with whichever assembly method is available and opted for at the time of production.
2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-01.2024]
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer. The process of making the developer was allowed. The difference between the inventive process and the prior art was the addition of metal oxide and carboxylic acid as separate ingredients instead of adding the more expensive pre-reacted metal carboxylate. The product-by-process claim was rejected because the end product, in both the prior art and the allowed process, ends up containing metal carboxylate. The fact that the metal carboxylate is not directly added, but is instead produced in-situ does not change the end product.). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See also Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., 976 F.3d 1326, 1334, 2020 USPQ2d 11129 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("Biogen is certainly correct that the scope of composition and method of treatment claims is generally subject to distinctly different analyses. But where, as here, the novelty of the method of administration rests wholly on the novelty of the composition administered, which in turn rests on the novelty of the source limitation, the Amgen analysis will necessarily result in the same conclusion on anticipation for both forms of claims."); United Therapeutics Corp. v Liquidia Techs., Inc., 74 F.4th 1360, 1373, 2023 USPQ2d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (the court held that product-by-process claims were properly rejected as "anticipated by a disclosure of the same product irrespective of the processes by which they are made."); and Purdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, 811 F.3d 1345, 117 USPQ2d 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, in the context of an infringement analysis, a product-by-process claim is only infringed by a product made by the process recited in the claim. Id. at 1370 ("a product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim, but an accused product made by a different process cannot infringe a product-by-process claim").
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979) (holding "interbonded by interfusion" to limit structure of the claimed composite and noting that terms such as "welded," "intermixed," "ground in place," "press fitted," and "etched" are capable of construction as structural limitations). See also In re Nordt Dev. Co., 881 F.3d 1371,1375-76, 125 USPQ2d 1817, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(holding "the specification demonstrates that ‘injected molded’ connotes an integral structure," and discussing several cases since Garnero that held "limitations to convey structure even when they also describe a process of manufacture").
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘193 in view of Auston et al. (US 2019/0076679).
KR ‘193 discloses:
14. An exoskeleton for a retractable fall arrestor (see below), the exoskeleton comprising:
a first half (cylindrical portion of 40) connected to a second half (conical portion of 40);
a first ring having a first diameter (see below);
a second ring having a second diameter (see below), wherein the second diameter is different from the first diameter (see below);
a first end defining a first aperture (larger opening at end of 40 that receives the fall arrestor); and
a second end defining a second aperture (smaller opening at opposing end where 70 exits),
wherein the first ring and the second ring have a circular cross-section (when sliced/transected creating ring-shaped slices)
wherein the first half and the second half form a body (40), wherein the first ring and the second ring are connected to the body (see below);
wherein the exoskeleton is configured for the first ring and the second ring to roll on a surface when the retractable fall arrestor is in use (capable of; when the body is positioned angled on its side [additional figure inserted below] such that the two contact rings are contacting a surface; note how the first contact ring protrudes outward from the body, which would elevate the conical portion up from the surface, allowing for the two contact rings to roll on a surface; see further remarks in Response to Arguments).
wherein the body is configured to hold (intended use/ not positively claimed) a retractable fall arrestor that comprises a connector (i.e. how frame and lid with connecting ring- 30, 31, 60 are held in the body) for connecting the retractable fall arrestor to a structural anchor (via 10), wherein the retractable fall arrestor (which isn’t positively claimed) further comprises a lifeline (70); and
wherein the first aperture (larger opening at end of 40 that receives the fall arrestor) is configured to receive the connector (30, 31, 60) which extends beyond the exoskeleton (note that ring 31 extends beyond 40) and connects to the structural anchor (via 10); and
wherein the second aperture is configured for receiving the lifeline (70).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
572
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KR ‘193 does not disclose wherein at least a portion of first contact ring and second contact ring comprise a shock absorbing material, or wherein the exoskeleton comprises a resilient plastic material
However, Auston et al. teach:
wherein at least a portion of first contact surface and second contact surface comprise a shock absorbing material ([0068]); and wherein the exoskeleton comprises a resilient plastic material ([0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the exoskeleton of KR ‘193 of a resilient plastic shock absorbing material, as taught by Auston et al. so as to provide protection exoskeleton during routine use, where it may inadvertently bang against surfaces from which it is supported, the resilient plastic shock absorbing material, adding to the durability of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 22 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘193 as applied to claims 3, 8, 15 and 19 above, and further in view of Auston et al. el. (US 2019/0076679).
KR ‘193 does not disclose wherein at least a portion of first contact surface and second contact surface comprise a shock absorbing material, or wherein the exoskeleton comprises a resilient plastic material
However, Auston et al. teach:
11 & 22. The exoskeleton of claim 8 & 19, wherein at least a portion of first contact surface and second contact surface comprise a shock absorbing material ([0068]); and
13 & 25. The exoskeleton of claim 3 & 15, wherein the exoskeleton comprises a resilient plastic material ([0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the exoskeleton of KR ‘193 of a resilient plastic shock absorbing material, as taught by Auston et al. so as to provide protection exoskeleton during routine use, where it may inadvertently bang against surfaces from which it is supported, the resilient plastic shock absorbing material, adding to the durability of the apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to independent claims 1, 3 and 26, the applicant argues that the exoskeleton of KR ‘193 is not configured for or capable of both the first contact surface ring and the second contact surface ring to be in contact with the external surface when the retractable fall arrestor is resting on the external surface. This argument is not persuasive for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the applicant is once again reminded that the fall arrestor is not positively claimed in these claims and that they are only directed to the exoskeleton/cradle, not the combination.
Second, claims 1 and 3 have been amended to change the “configured for” limitations of the end of the claim from “when the retractable fall arrestor is in use” to “when the retractable fall arrestor is resting on the external surface”, meaning when considering the configured to claim language, the retractable fall arrestor does not need to be positioned within the exoskeleton. Claim 26 has had a similar limitation added to the end of the claim.
Third, the argument appears to be based on a number of assumptions about unknown variables; including the supporting surface texture, angle and/or surface interruptions, the size and weight of different components of the exoskeleton and/or the unclaimed fall arrestor, and if and how the apparatus is secured to a structural anchor above. There are certainly situations and constructions that would allow for the exoskeleton of KR ‘193 to rest on a surface as shown in the annotated images above and as claimed.
With respect to independent claim 14, applicant remarks are focused on the connector of the fall arrestor extending beyond the exoskeleton and connecting to a structural anchor. Again, claim 14, like claims 1 and 3, is only directed to the exoskeleton, and does not include the fall arrestor which includes the connector to which the applicant’s arguments are directed. Setting that aside, examiner also points out that the frame and lid with connecting ring (30, 31, 60) of KR ‘193 can be considered the connector, and as connecting ring 31 extends beyond the exoskeleton, the reference is still applicable and reads on the claim limitation.
With respect to claim 15, applicant first argues that the prior art KR ‘193 only describes one aperture, in the claim recites the first and second aperture. This is not persuasive because while the prior art may reference one aperture where the cable 70 exits, there is clearly another aperture at the opposing end of the body where the fall arrestor is inserted.
Applicant also argues against claim 15 that element 60 of the prior art cannot be considered the connector because it does not extend beyond the exoskeleton, as now required in the amended claim. However, as advanced in the above rejections, and explained in the above response, the connector has been identified as the frame and lid member with the connector ring (30, 31, 60) and ring 31, which is part of the identified connector, clearly extends beyond the exoskeleton at the first aperture, and the lifeline extending beyond the exoskeleton at the second aperture.
Applicant’s remarks are focused heavily on intended use and the assumption that the prior art could, or would, only be able to be used in one orientation and on specific surfaces. Again, it appears the applicant is arguing a narrower interpretation of the claim language than that actually presented by the claimed limitations.
For at least these reasons applicant’s remarks are not found persuasive in the claims remain rejected as advanced above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights