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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moldow (5,622,237).
Moldow discloses:
Claim 1: A rescue system for evacuating an incapacitated person from an elevated area, the system comprising:
a frame (Fig. 1; 48) configured to be mounted on a pair of vertical posts (Fig. 1; 18/20) extending upwardly from a surface of the elevated area (Fig. 1; 16), the posts defining a plane (Fig. 1; 18/20 define a vertical plane), wherein at least a portion of the frame is cantilevered out from the plane of the posts (Fig. 1; 48 is depicted as cantilevered out from 18 and 20), and
a lowering system (Fig. 1; 82) supported by the cantilevered portion of the frame, the lowering system being configured to allow a rescuer to lower the incapacitated person by rope (Fig. 1; see detail) from the elevated area.
PNG
media_image1.png
572
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: The rescue system of claim 1 further comprising a pair of frame tension lines (74/80) each having a first end configured to be attached to the frame at an upper end of the vertical posts (Fig. 1; 80 is depicted as attached to 48 and 18/20 at their upper ends) and a second end configured to be anchored to the surface of the elevated area (Fig. 1; 74 is attached to 16 62).
Claim 3: The rescue system of claim 1 wherein the lowering system comprises a rope having a first end configured to be fixedly attached to the frame (Fig. 1; via 83/84).
Claim 5: The rescue system of claim 1 wherein the frame includes a horizontal assembly (Fig. 1; 80), a first end of which is mounted at upper ends of the vertical posts (Fig. 1; at 75) and a second, opposite end of which is cantilevered out therefrom (Fig. 1; 80 is depicted as cantilevered out from 75), and a pair of diagonal members (Fig. 3; 54 left and right) that extend from corners of the second end to lower ends of the vertical posts (Fig. 1; 54 extend to lower ends of 18/20).
Claim 8: The rescue system of claim 1 wherein lower ends of the posts are removably mounted in anchors secured to the surface of the elevated area (Fig. 1; 18/20 are removably mounted to 16 via 28 and 38).
Claim 9: The rescue system of claim 1 wherein the frame comprises a plurality of members that are detachably joined to each other (Fig. 3; 48 is depicted as 3 members joined by 49).
Claim 15: A method of evacuating a person from an elevated work area, the method comprising:
deploying a rescue system that includes a frame (Fig. 1; 48) having a portion that is cantilevered out from an edge of the work area (Fig. 1; 17) and defines an opening through which the person can pass, and a lowering system supported by the cantilevered portion of the frame (Fig. 1; 48 is depicted as cantilevered out from 18 and 20),
securing the person to a portion of the lowering system (Fig. 1; 82); and utilizing the lowering system to lower the person from the elevated work area (Fig. 1).
Claim 17: The method of claim 15 wherein deploying the rescue system includes anchoring the frame to a surface of the elevated work area (Fig. 1; 48 is mounted to 16 via 12).
Claim 18: The method of claim 17 wherein deploying the rescue system includes attaching the frame to anchors that have been pre-installed on the surface prior to the evacuation (Fig. 1; 12 is preinstalled on 16 – Figs. 7-8 depict the frame without the rails when being collapsed for transport).
Claim 20: The method of claim 15 wherein utilizing the lowering system includes feeding a rope attached to the person through a double fall pulley mechanism (Fig. 1; 82 is depicted with 2 pulleys which the rope passes through).
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 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moldow (5,622,237) in view of Smith (2024/0158058).
Claim 4: Moldow discloses the rescue system of claim 3 but fails to disclose wherein the lowering system further comprises a winch.
However, Smith discloses a winch (Fig. 2; 220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rescue system of Moldow to include the winch, as taught by Smith, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow rescue of an individual by a rescue person on an elevated surface (Abstract).
Claim 16: Moldow discloses the method of claim 15 but fails to disclose wherein utilizing the lowering system comprises operating a winch that forms part of the lowering system.
However, Smith discloses a winch (Fig. 2; 220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rescue system of Moldow to include the winch, as taught by Smith, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow rescue of an individual by a rescue person on an elevated surface (Abstract).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moldow (5,622,237) in view of Loayza (2006/0102422).
Claim 6: Moldow discloses the rescue system of claim 3 but fails to disclose wherein the lowering system further includes a plurality of pulley carabiners.
However, Loayza discloses a plurality of carabiners used as pulleys (Fig. 6; 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lowering system of Moldow to include the pulley carabiners, as taught by Loayza, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a smooth surface for the rope to slide over during rescue and prevent binding in a pulley.
Claim 7: Moldow discloses the rescue system of claim 6 but fails to disclose wherein the frame is constructed of non-conductive material.
However, Loayza discloses a frame constructed of non-conductive material (Para. [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lowering system of Moldow to include the pulley carabiners, as taught by Loayza, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a lightweight, portable yet rigid frame (Para. [0052-0053]).
Claims 10-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moldow (5,622,237) in view of Morrone, III (2013/0086842) hereinafter Morrone.
Claim 10: Moldow discloses a safety system for use in an elevated work area, the safety system comprising:
a railing system comprising:
a plurality of posts (Fig. 1; 18/20) anchored to a surface of the elevated work area (Fig. 1; anchored to 16 via 28 and 38); and
a rescue system comprising:
a frame configured to be mounted on a pair of vertical posts (Fig. 1; 18/20) extending upwardly from a surface of the elevated area (Fig. 1; 16), the posts defining a plane (Fig. 1; 18/20 define a vertical plane), wherein at least a portion of the frame is cantilevered out from the plane of the posts (Fig. 1; 48 is depicted as cantilevered out from 18 and 20), and
a lowering system (Fig. 1; 82) supported by the cantilevered portion of the frame, the lowering system being configured to allow a rescuer to lower the incapacitated person by rope (Fig. 1; see detail) from the elevated area.
Moldow fails to disclose a plurality of rails extending between the posts to define a guard rail assembly; and
a sliding gate in the guard rail assembly providing, when open, an open area for access to the elevated work area from below.
However, Morrone discloses a plurality of rails defining a sliding gate guardrail assembly (Fig. 1; 100, Para. [0027-0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the safety system of Moldow to include the sliding gate guardrail assembly, as taught by Morrone, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide adjustable placement of a guardrail/gate to prevent against passage through an opening (Abstract).
Claim 11: Moldow and Morrone disclose the safety system of claim 10 wherein the sliding gate comprises a pair of horizontal cylindrical sliding members (Morrone – Fig. 1; 6 and 8) that are telescopically mounted in cylindrical sheath members (Morrone – Fig. 1; 2 and 4).
Claim 12: Moldow discloses the safety system of claim 10 wherein the rescue system further comprises anchors (Fig. 1; 62 includes multiple anchors for 50 and 78) secured to the elevated work area (Fig. 1; 16), each anchor comprising a base plate (Fig. 2; 14), an elongated socket extending upwardly from the base plate (Fig. 2; where 68 extends into 62), and a flange extending laterally from the socket (Fig. 1; Fig. 1; see detail also depicted on the opposite side of 62 in Fig. 2).
Claim 13: Moldow discloses the safety system of claim 12 wherein the socket is dimensioned to receive the lower end of one of the vertical posts (Fig. 2; the lower end of 18 is received in 28) of the rescue system and includes a through bore (Fig. 2; where 30 inserts) configured to receive a pin to secure the post in the socket (Fig. 2; 30 secures 18 in 28).
Claim 14: Moldow discloses the safety system of claim 13 wherein the flange includes a bore (Fig. 1; where 72 inserts) configured to allow mounting of the diagonal members of the frame to the anchor (Fig. 1; via 50).
Claim 19: Moldow discloses the method of claim 15 but fails to disclose wherein the opening is in a railing system that is disposed along the edge of the work area, the opening is normally closed by a sliding gate, and the method further comprises the step of opening the sliding gate.
However, Morrone discloses a sliding gate railing system (Fig. 1; 100, Para. [0027-0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the safety system of Moldow to include the sliding gate railing system, as taught by Morrone, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide adjustable placement of a railing/gate to prevent against passage through an opening (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen M. McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-9139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/Kathleen M. McFarland/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Kathleen M. McFarland
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635