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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on March 9, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant identified claims 1-5, 7-8 and 10 being on the elected species. Claims 6, 9 and 11-20 were canceled in the reply
Drawings
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 “physical movement or deformation of at least some parts in response to the weight of the user” (claim 2) and “mechanical deformation of an axis of the drum or a guide roll being in contact with the wire in response to the weight of the user through a spring disposed on one side of an inside of the casing” (claim 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 § 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 2-3 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 specification does not disclose how the constant speed control unit changes the resistance value of the braking resistor by physical movement or deformation of at least some parts in response to the weight of the user, as claimed in claim 2, or how the constant speed control unit changes the resistance value of the braking resistor by differently detecting a mechanical deformation of an axis of the drum or a guide roll being in contact with the wire in response to the weight of the user through a spring disposed on one side of an inside of the casing, as claimed in claim 3.
The specification uses the same language as the claims without any further detail as to how or where features would be incorporated, and acknowledges that these features are not shown in the drawings. It appears that these features and limitations are not described in the specification.
No new matter should be added in addressing the above concerns.
NOTE: Claim 2 has been rejected with prior art as best understood using the broadest reasonable interpretation of “physical movement… of at least some parts in response to the weight of a user”, applying the movement of the drum as movement of a part in response to the user’s weight. However, due to the complete lack of description and depiction of what is being claimed in figure 3, no prior art is currently applied. Again, no new matter should be added in addressing these issues.
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 3 and 5 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.
It is unclear what the applicant means by “differently detecting” (claim 3) and “differently checks” (claim 5). Via the disclosure, it unclear if the applicant means that the respective detecting and checking are an alternative to or in addition to or further detailing what is already set forth in the claims. While the specification uses the term “alternatively”, all of the constant speed control unit changes claimed are still in response to the weight of the user, and considering the lack of description noted above, it is not clear what the applicant means by “differently detecting” and “differently checks”.
Appropriate correction and clarification are required. No new matter should be added.
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, 4-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oshima (JPH07308394A) (see attached translation).
Oshima discloses:
1. A portable emergency escape device (2, figure 1) comprising:
a casing (2, figure 4, see below)
a drum (reel, figure 4) rotatably installed inside the casing (figure 4) and around which a wire (4) is wound (figure 4);
a reduction gear (14, 17) connected to the drum (figure 4);
a DC motor (108, figure 4) having a rotation shaft connected to the reduction gear (figure 5);
a safety belt (9, figure 3) worn by a user (figure 2, see below);
a braking resistor (104) for determining a descent speed ([0006], [0015]); and
a constant speed control unit (113) connected to the braking resistor (figure 6), wherein the braking resistor (104) is connected between both ends (+, -) of a power input terminal of the DC motor (figure 6), and the braking resistor (104) can control a resistance value (known function of a braking resistor),
wherein the constant speed control unit (113) changes the resistance value of the braking resistor in response to the user's weight to maintain the descent speed constant regardless of the user's weight (as both the resistance value and speed control unit are a function of the drum rotation which is a function of the user’s weight).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(figure 6 on following page)
PNG
media_image2.png
526
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2. The portable emergency escape device according to claim 1, wherein the constant speed control unit changes the resistance value of the braking resistor by physical movement (rotation of the drum) or deformation of at least some parts in response to the weight of the user (as both the resistance value and speed control unit are a function of the drum rotation which is a function of the user’s weight).
4. The portable emergency escape device according to claim 1, wherein, when descending, the constant speed control unit differently checks at least one of a voltage (voltage detector 107) and a current (current detector 109) generated between the power input terminals of the DC motor (figure 6) in response to the weight of the user to change the resistance value of the braking resistor ([0015]-[0019])
5. The portable emergency escape device according to claim 1, wherein, when descending, the constant speed control unit (113) differently checks a rotation amount of one selected from the DC motor (rotation detector 110), the drum, the reduction gear, and a guide roll in response to the weight of the user to change the resistance value of the braking resistor ([0018]).
7. The portable emergency escape device according to claim 1, wherein a switching element is connected to the braking resistor, and the constant speed control unit performs a pulse control using the switching element to change the resistance value between both ends of the power input terminal of the DC motor ([0015]).
8. The portable emergency escape device according to claim 1, wherein the braking resistor (104) is configured by connecting a plurality of resistance elements in parallel or series (“multiple resistors”, [0015], and figure 6).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Okamura (US 2001/0023793). Oshima does not disclose wherein the braking resistor is configured by a plurality of LEDs or motors.
However, Okamura teaches: wherein the braking resistor (59) is configured by a plurality of LEDs (56, 57; figures 1 & 4) or motors.
PNG
media_image3.png
710
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the braking resistor of Oshima with a plurality of LEDs, as taught by Okamura, for the dual benefit of providing a braking resistor while also alerting the user to the working status of the motor and battery/power source. Additionally, it is noted that LEDs are a well-known readily available resistor option.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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