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 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.
Claims 12-16, 18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novotny et al. (US 20210220680), hereinafter Novotny, in view of KIls et al. (US 20220403898), hereinafter Kils.
Regarding claim 12, Novotny teaches of (fig. 2) a fall protection locking system (abstract, locking system for fall protection) comprising:
a housing (housing 130) defining a guide path (guide path160) configured to receive a guide member (guide member 300), wherein the housing (130) is configured to slide along the guide member (fig. 3A, ¶0023, The distal end of the housing is sized to slidably receive a guide member, such as a rope, a cable, and/or the like);
a primary braking lever (braking lever 115) rotatably coupled in the housing (¶0025, A braking lever 115 is rotatably connected between the housing 130), the primary braking lever (115) comprising:
a first end (fig. 2, breaking end 210) configured to engage with the guide member (300) (fig. 2, ¶0027, the braking end 210 of the braking lever 115 positioned in the locked position, such that the braking end 210 may be engaged with the guide member);
a second end (top arm portion 195, shock absorber 185) comprising a shock absorber (185) configured to deform during a fall instance (abstract, shock absorber configured to deform during a fall instance), wherein the primary braking lever (115) defines a speed reduction curve (curve at end 210) located between the first end thereof and the second end thereof (seen in fig. 2); and
a connecting portion extending between the first end and the second end (fig. 2, portion between the first end 210 and the second end), the connecting portion comprising at least one hook (one or more hooks 190) configured to engage the second end with the connecting portion (seen in fig. 2); and
a secondary braking lever (secondary braking feature 200) rotatably coupled in the housing (¶0027, secondary braking feature 200 may be rotatably attached to at least one of the housing 130, the cover plate 140, or the guide wheel locking plate 150A, 150B) and defining a second arcuate surface (figs. 2 and 4B, braking surface 205) configured to engage with the guide member (300), wherein the secondary braking lever (200) is configured independent from the primary braking lever (115) (¶0032, the secondary braking feature 200 may be completely independent of the braking lever 115).
Novotny does not appear to teach of wherein the speed reduction curve is a logarithmic spiral curve.
Kils teaches of wherein the speed reduction curve is a logarithmic spiral curve (fig. 1, ¶0029, protrusion 134 may comprise a logarithmic shape. That is to say, the camming angle of the cam 130 may be relatively constant when only the protrusion 134 is in contact with the line 104.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novotny to incorporate the teachings of Song of wherein the speed reduction curve is a logarithmic spiral curve in order to have the cam pressed to the rope with a constant angle as motivated by Kils in para. 0029 and may prevent overloading of a line system and decrease a likelihood of degradation of the line due to excess tension as motivated by Kils in para. 0024.
Regarding claim 13, Novotny as modified teaches of claim 12, and Kils further teaches of wherein the logarithmic spiral curve includes a constant angle between a tangent of the logarithmic spiral curve and a radius of the logarithmic spiral curve (fig. 1, ¶0029, protrusion 134 may comprise a logarithmic shape. That is to say, the camming angle of the cam 130 may be relatively constant when only the protrusion 134 is in contact with the line 104.).
Regarding claim 14, Novotny as modified teaches of claim 12, and (annotated fig. 1 below) wherein the secondary braking lever (200) defines a third aperture (aperture of the pin in the center of the spring 215) configured to engage with a second pin defining a second pivot, wherein the secondary braking lever (200) is configured to rotate about the second pivot (¶0027, secondary braking lever 200 rotates about the second pivot of the pin).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1: fig. 2 of Novotny
Regarding claim 15, Novotny as modified teaches of claim 14, and (fig. 4A) the secondary braking lever (200) is spring biased (spring 215) against rotation due to gravity when the fall protection locking system is stationary or subjected to minimum movement (¶0031, the secondary braking feature 200 may include a pre-loaded spring 215 configured to counteract the force of gravity on the secondary braking feature 200. As such, in an instance the locking system 100 is not moving or moving slowly, the force due to gravity may be counteracted by the spring 215, such that the secondary braking feature 200 has minimal to no rotational movement.).
Regarding claim 16, Novotny as modified teaches of claim 15, and (fig. 4B) wherein the secondary braking lever (200) is configured to rotate into engagement with the guide member (300), due to change in the center of gravity of the secondary braking lever, during the fall instance (¶0031, In an instance in which the locking system 100 is experiencing a fall instance, the force of gravity may decrease on the secondary braking feature. In such an instance, the force from the spring 215 has little or no counter force due to gravity and causes the secondary braking feature to rotate in the counter clockwise position, such that the braking surface 205 of the secondary braking feature 200 rotates into contact with the guide member 300 as shown in FIG. 4B).
Regarding claim 18, Novotny as modified teaches of claim 12, and (annotated fig. 1 and fig. 3A) wherein the primary braking lever is spring (spring at the primary braking lever 115) biased against rotation thereof (the spring is biased against the rotation thereof as seen in figs. 2 and 3A).
Regarding claim 21, Novotny as modified teaches of claim 12, but does not appear to teach of wherein the first end defines an arcuate surface having a radius of curvature less that a radius of curvature of the speed reduction curve.
Kils teaches of wherein the first end defines an arcuate surface having a radius of curvature less that a radius of curvature of the speed reduction curve (figs. 4A-4E, the two lines of the camming angles 402, 412, 422, 432, 442 shows two radii of curvature when taken from the origin to the points on protrusion 134: one for the radius of curvature of an arcuate surface at the first end and one for the radius of curvature of the speed reduction curve. The radius of curvature of an arcuate surface is less than the radius of curvature of the speed reduction curve. The speed reduction curve is tangential to the line 104; fig. 5, points at the end of the lines 502 show a radius of curvature of an arcuate surface and a radius of curvature of the speed reduction curve. The radius of an arcuate surface is less than the radius of curvature of the speed reduction curve when the guide member is in contact at the point of the longer line 502).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novotny to incorporate the teachings of Kils of wherein the first end defines an arcuate surface having a radius of curvature less that a radius of curvature of the speed reduction curve in order to have it so that as the cam rotates, portions of the spiral with a greater radius may contact the line as motivated by Kils in para. 0035.
Regarding claim 22, Novotny as modified teaches of claim 12, and (annotated fig. 1 above) wherein the first end (210) further defines a first aperture configured to engage with a first pin (aperture for first pin) defining a first pivot and configured to rotate about the first pivot (pivots from an unlocked position to a locked position as seen in figs. 3A-3B) to provide contact between different points of the speed reduction curve and the guide member (rotation to the line would provide contact between different points of the speed reduction curve and the guide member; Kils in figs. 4A-5 additionally teaches that the curve of the speed reduction curve provides contact between different points of the speed reduction curve and the guide member as the cam rotates, which applies to the logarithmic spiral curve that has been modified into Novotny).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novotny as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gossen (EP 2200702).
Regarding claim 17, Novotny as modified teaches of claim 12, but does not appear to teach of wherein a diameter of the guide member is in a range of about 8 mm to about 10 mm.
Gossen teaches of (fig. 8) wherein a diameter of the guide member (ropes S) is in a range of about 8 mm to about 10 mm (p. 5, ropes S can be 8 mm, 10 mm, and 3/8 inches, which is 9.5 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Novotny to incorporate the teachings of Gossen of wherein a diameter of the guide member is in a range of about 8 mm to about 10 mm in order to use diameters typical for guide members in the USA and Europe and to be dimensioned so that guide members of different diameters can be accommodated as motivated by Gossen on p. 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-18 and 21-22 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.
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.
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOE TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-6pm EST.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/ZOE TAM TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights