DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1- 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kils et al. 11,781,610 in view of Johannson et al. U.S. 2012/0103725.
Regarding claim 1, as broadly claimed, Kils shows in figures 1-5:
A locking system capable of use with a vertical cable shuttle, the locking system comprising: a housing 100,110 defining a guide path 102 and slideably attached to a guide member 104; and a braking element 130 rotatably mounted within the housing.
Lacking in Kils is a specific statement that the braking element 130 has a logarithmic spiral structure configured to rotate into engagement with the guide member 104 during a fall, wherein the logarithmic spiral structure of the braking element defines a constant slope angle for gripping of the guide member.
However Kils states in col 6 lines 10-37:
In some examples, the cam 130 may be configured with a spiral shape, as shown in FIG. 5. As the cam rotates, portions of the spiral with a greater radius may contact the line. In one example, the radius of the spiral cam may increase at a rate greater than logarithmic, thereby causing a gradual increase in a camming angle with an increase in cam rotation. For example, section 502 of the embodiment 500 of a device, which may be used similarly to the device 100 of FIG. 1, may include a logarithmic shape. Dashed line 504 illustrates a continuation of the logarithmic shape. However, the spiral shaped cam of the embodiment 500 includes a shape with an increasing camming angle due to an increasing radius section 506 beyond the section 502. In this way, the increasing radius section 506 of the spiral-shaped cam of FIG. 5 may correspond to a non-logarithmic section of the cam. That is to say, the cam angle of the device 100 of FIG. 1 and the device of embodiment 500 may comprise a relatively constant camming angle until the tail 132 or the increased radius section 506 contacts the line 104, wherein the camming angle may increase in a stepped manner. The cam may be alternatively configured to include a spiral shape with a radius from a pivot point of the cam (e.g., bearing 140) increasing in a direction of increasing rotation of the cam 130. As portions of the spiral cam with larger radii contact the line, the camming angle increases, such that the camming angle of the spiral shaped cam may gradually increase throughout a rotation of the cam.
Nevertheless the reference to Johansson also shows a device capable of use as a locking system with a vertical cable shuttle (as broadly claimed) at 7,9 and states in para 0039:
[0039] The invention is not limited by what has been described hereinabove, but can be varied within the scope of the following claims… The shape of the swivel arm 7 can be varied. If a different control method is desired, also the shape of the protruding portion 9 can be varied. It is e.g. conceivable to give the protruding portion 9 a contour adaptation to the braking means, wherein a longer contact length between the protruding portion of the swivel arm and the lifeline is obtained.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have made the braking element 130 In Kils with a logarithmic spiral structure (as alluded to therein) simply to adapt the device to different applications and/or circumstances since it is notoriously well known in the art that to make minor variations in shapes of elements for this reason, as suggested by Johansson. Further it is well established case law that such minor variations in shapes are not patentably significant.
Regarding claim 2 Kils states in the last para of col 3:
A line path 102 may be configured to receive the line 104. In one example, the line 104 is a rope. The line path 102 may be defined by a cam 130 and a baseplate 110. The line 104 may be selected from a plurality of lines including a variety of lengths, thicknesses (e.g., diameters), and constructions.
Therefore the limitations of claim 2 are considered to be capable of being met.
Regarding claim 3, as explained above, these limitations are considered to be capable of being met.
Regarding claim 4 it would have been obvious to have made the braking element from a material such as alloy or high strength steel since these materials are well known and widely utilized in applications where high strength, corrosion and wear resistance are needed.
Regarding claims 5-7, as explained above, these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 8, as broadly claimed, the braking element is biased against rotation due to gravity, ensuring that the braking element remains in position to grip the guide member during the fall.
Regarding claim 9, as broadly claimed, and since minor alterations in shape are allowed as indicated by Kils a center of gravity of the braking element is capable of being located towards the braking surface of the braking element.
Regarding claim 10 if the braking element is selected according to one of the materials discussed above these limitations are capable of being met.
Regarding claim 11 note the ‘abrasive outer surface’ i.e. teeth at 150.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-19 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
12/7/25