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 Objections
Claims 1 and 4 objected to because of the following informalities: "an eyelet" should read "a first eyelet". Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: A first and second eyelet are not disclosed in the specification, only "eyelet" is disclosed. The examiner recommends renaming the eyelet designated element 122 to “first eyelet” and the eyelet designated element 119 to “second eyelet”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (Patent No. 6,857,834) in view of Woodward (Patent No. 4,096,807).
Re: claim 1, Nelson et al. teaches a cable support safety system for a semi-trailer (See Fig. 6), the cable support safety system comprising: a retention cable (Fig. 6 – 30) having a first end (Fig. 6 – end at 180) and a second end (Fig. 6 – end at 181). Nelson et al. fails to teach the cable support safety system comprising: a main cable; and an eyelet.
However, Woodward teaches the cable support safety system comprising: a main cable (Fig. 1 – 20); and an eyelet (Fig. 8 – 22).
Nelson et al. and Woodward are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of hanging retainers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Nelson et al.’s rails with those of Woodward’s cables in order to provide for a system that is easier to maintain and is more efficient. (i.e., Having to replace a cable over a rail, or having to repair a cable over a rail would take less time and resources to complete).
Re: claim 2, Nelson et al. teaches further comprising a clip (Fig. 6 – 180) positioned at the first end (Fig. 6 – first end at 180).
Re: claim 3, Nelson et al. teaches further comprising a clip (Fig. 6 – 181) positioned at the second end (Fig. 6 – second end at 181).
Re: claim 4, Woodward further teaches wherein the eyelet (Fig. 8 – 22) is a threaded eyelet (Col. 2 – lines 53-55) or a magnetic eyelet.
Claim(s) 5, 8, and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (Patent No. 6,857,834) in view of Woodward (Patent No. 4,096,807) in further view of Forankra (NPL1 – youtube.com/watch?v=1Y6-mKaOXik).
Re: claim 5, Nelson et al. teaches a cable support safety system for a semi-trailer, the cable support safety system comprising: a retention cable (Fig. 6 – 30) having a first end (Fig. 6 – end at 180) and a second end (Fig. 6 – end at 181); and an apparatus (Fig. 6 – 120) comprising a second eyelet (Fig. 6 – 182). Nelson et al. fails to teach the cable support safety system comprising: a main cable; a first eyelet; and a spring pole comprised of an outer body, an inner body, and a spring.
However, Woodward teaches the cable support safety system comprising: a main cable (Fig. 1 – 20); and a first eyelet (Fig. 8 – 22). Woodward fails to teach a spring pole comprised of an outer body, an inner body, and a spring.
However, Forankra teaches a spring pole (Fig. 1 – Spring Pole) comprised of an outer body (Fig.1 – Outer Body), an inner body (Fig. 1 – Inner Body), and a spring (Fig. 1 – Internal Spring).
Nelson et al., Woodward, and Forankra are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of hanging retainers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Nelson et al.’s panels and Woodward’s shield with Forankra’s Spring Pole in order to provide for a system that is easier to maintain and is more efficient. (i.e., the use of a pole over a large panel or shield allows for the securement of cargo that has non-standard shaping, and allows for the user to more easily replace the securement device should it need maintenance or get damaged).
Re: claim 8, Nelson et al. further teaches further comprising a clamp (Fig. 6 – 181) positioned on the second end (Fig. 6 – end at 181).
It is noted by the examiner that clip and clamp are used interchangeably in the industry and thus the hook of Nelson et al. fulfills the limitation of being a clip and a clamp.
Re: claim 10, Forankra further teaches further comprising a foot (Fig. 3 – foot) positioned on the inner body (Fig. 1 – inner body).
Re: claim 11, Forankra further teaches wherein each of the inner body (Fig. 1 – inner body) and the outer body (Fig. 1 – outer body) comprise an opening (Fig. 2 – inner body opening, outer body opening).
Re: claim 12, Forankra further teaches further comprising a pin (Fig. 2 – pin).
Re: claim 13, Forankra further teaches wherein the spring pole comprises an adjustable height (Fig. 2 – Adjustable height).
Re: claim 14, Forankra further teaches wherein a top end of the outer body of the spring pole is rounded (Fig. 2 – Rounding).
Re: claim 15, Forankra further teaches wherein the spring (Fig. 1 – internal spring) is positioned within between the inner body (Fig. 1 – inner body) and the outer body (Fig. 1 – outer body) (See also Fig. 5 and timestamps 1:08 to 1:13 for spring compression to remove the spring pole).
Re: claim 16, Nelson et al. teaches a method of using a cable support safety system for a semi-trailer, the method comprising the steps of: securing the retention cable (Fig. 6 – 30) to the rail via a clip at a first end (Fig. 6 – 180) of the retention cable; and securing a retention cable to a second eyelet (Fig. 6 – 182) of the apparatus (Fig. via a clip at a second end (Fig. 6 – 181) the apparatus (See Also Col. 5 – lines 54-55).
Nelson et al. fails to teach the method comprising the steps of: securing a first eyelet of the cable support safety system to a trailer roof or a trailer roof frame; feeding a main cable of the cable support safety system through the first eyelet; adjusting a spring pole of the cable support safety system to a desired height by pulling an outer body of the spring pole outwards in relation to an inner body of the spring pole and placing a pin through an opening in the outer body and through an opening in the inner body; positioning a top end and positioning a foot of the spring pole such that the spring pole contacts a trailer floor and the trailer roof so that a compressive force is placed on an internal spring within the spring pole to secure the spring pole in a vertical position and perpendicular to the trailer floor and the trailer roof.
However, Woodward teaches the method comprising the steps of: securing a first eyelet (Fig. 1 – 22, 25) of the cable support safety system to a trailer frame (Fig. 1 – 11); feeding a main cable (Fig. 2 – 20) of the cable support safety system through the first eyelet (Fig. 2 – 26). Woodward fails to teach wherein the eyelet is secured to the trailer roof or trailer roof frame; and the method comprising the steps of: adjusting a spring pole of the cable support safety system to a desired height by pulling an outer body of the spring pole outwards in relation to an inner body of the spring pole and placing a pin through an opening in the outer body and through an opening in the inner body; positioning a top end and positioning a foot of the spring pole such that the spring pole contacts a trailer floor and the trailer roof so that a compressive force is placed on an internal spring within the spring pole to secure the spring pole in a vertical position and perpendicular to the trailer floor and the trailer roof. Nelson et al. and Woodward are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of hanging retainers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Nelson et al.’s rails with those of Woodward’s cables in order to provide for a system that is easier to maintain and is more efficient. (i.e., Having to replace a cable over a rail, or having to repair a cable over a rail would take less time and resources to complete).
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Attachment of the eye-bolt and turnbuckle to the roof of the trailer instead of the wall would be an obvious design choice.
However, Forankra teaches the method comprising the steps of: adjusting a spring pole (Fig. 6, see also timestamps 0:21 – 0:24) of the system to a desired height by pulling an outer body of the spring pole outwards in relation to an inner body of the spring pole (See Fig. 6, see also timestamps 0:21 – 0:24) and placing a pin (Fig. 2 – pin) through an opening in the outer body (Fig. 2 – outer body opening) and through an opening in the inner body (Fig. 2 – inner body opening) ; positioning a top end and positioning a foot (Fig. 3 – foot) of the spring pole such that the spring pole contacts a trailer floor (Fig. 4 – Floor attachment) and the trailer roof (Fig. 4 – Roof attachment) so that a compressive force (See Fig. 1 – Movement) is placed on an internal spring (Fig. 1 – internal spring) within the spring pole to secure the spring pole in a vertical position and perpendicular to the trailer floor and the trailer roof (See Fig. 4).
Nelson et al., Woodward, and Forankra are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of hanging retainers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Nelson et al.’s panels and Woodward’s shield with Forankra’s Spring Pole in order to provide for a system that is easier to maintain and is more efficient. (i.e., the use of a pole over a large panel or shield allows for the securement of cargo that has non-standard shaping, and allows for the user to more easily replace the securement device should it need maintenance or get damaged).
Re: claim 17, Forankra further teaches wherein the method is alternatively comprised of pushing the outer body inwards relative to the inner body instead of pulling the outer body of the spring pole outwards in relation to the inner body (See Fig. 5 for steps of installation, See Also timestamps 0:47-0:51).
It is noted by the examiner that rotating the spring pole of Forankra 180 degrees would also read on the attachment method.
Re: claim 18, Forankra further teaches wherein the opening of the outer body (Fig. 2 – outer body opening) and the opening of the inner body (Fig. 2 – inner body opening) are aligned before the pin (Fig. 2 – pin) is placed through the opening of the outer body and through the opening of the inner body (See Timestamps 0:21 – 0:25 for adjustment of inner and outer body for openings to align).
Re: claim 19, Nelson et al. further teaches wherein the second end of the retention cable is alternatively comprised of a clamp (Fig. 6 – 181) instead of a clip.
It is noted by the examiner that clip and clamp are used interchangeably in the industry and thus the hook of Nelson et al. fulfills the limitation of being a clip and a clamp.
Re: claim 20, Nelson et al. teaches wherein the clamp (Fig. 6 – hook 181) is clamped to the outer body (Fig. 6 – eye 182) of apparatus (Fig. 6 – support panel 120) (See also Col. 5 – lines 54-55). Nelson et al. fails to teach wherein the apparatus is a spring pole.
However, Forankra teaches wherein the apparatus is a spring pole (Fig. 1 – spring pole).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (Patent No. 6,857,834) in view of Woodward (Patent No. 4,096,807) in further view of Forankra (NPL1 – youtube.com/watch?v=1Y6-mKaOXik) in even further view of The Home Depot (NPL2 – product website).
Re: claim 6, Nelson et al. teaches an eye bolt positioned on the first end (Fig. 6 – 180). Nelson et al. is silent to further comprising a swivel eye bolt snap clip positioned on the first end. Woodward and Forankra fail to teach further comprising a swivel eye bolt snap clip positioned on the first end.
However, The Home Depot teaches further comprising a swivel eye bolt snap clip (Fig. 1 – swivel eye quick snap clip).
Nelson et al., Woodward, Forankra, and The Home Depot are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of retainers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Nelson et al.’s adaptor with The Home Depot’s swivel eye quick snap clip in order to provide for a more modular system that is also less prone to repair. (i.e., a swivel eye bolt instead of a standard eyelet allows for rotation of the retention cable without causing any binding of the cable over time).
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Re: claim 7, Nelson et al. teaches further comprising a clip positioned on the second end (Fig. 6 – 181). Nelson et al. is silent on whether the clip is a quick snap clip. Woodward and Forankra fail to teach further comprising a quick snap clip positioned on the second end.
However, The Home Depot teaches further comprising a quick snap clip (Fig. 1 – swivel eye quick snap clip).
Nelson et al., Woodward, Forankra, and The Home Depot are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of retainers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Nelson et al.’s hook with The Home Depot’s swivel eye quick snap clip in order to provide for a system that has ease of use and is more efficient. (i.e., a quick snap clip instead of a standard clip allows for ease of connection when preparing the safety system).
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (Patent No. 6,857,834) in view of Woodward (Patent No. 4,096,807) in further view of Forankra (NPL1 – youtube.com/watch?v=1Y6-mKaOXik) in even further view of Ceiling Outfitters (NPL3 – product website).
Re: claim 9, Nelson et al. teaches wherein the retention cable is comprised of a vinyl-coated wire rope, a metal-braided rope, a vinyl-coated metal-braided rope, a steel cable, a chain (Fig. 6 – 30) or a vinyl-covered chain. Nelson et al. fails to teach wherein the main cable is comprised of a vinyl-coated wire rope, a metal-braided rope, a vinyl-coated metal-braided rope, a steel cable, a chain or a vinyl-covered chain. Woodward teaches a main cable (Fig. 4 – 20). Woodward fails to teach wherein the main cable is comprised of a vinyl-coated wire rope, a metal-braided rope, a vinyl-coated metal-braided rope, a steel cable, a chain or a vinyl-covered chain.
However, Ceiling Outfitters teaches wherein a cable is comprised of a vinyl-coated wire rope, a metal-braided rope (Fig. 1 – steel cable), a vinyl-coated metal-braided rope, a steel cable (Fig. 1 – steel cable), a chain or a vinyl-covered chain.
Nelson et al., Woodward, Forankra, and Ceiling Outfitters are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of retainers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Woodward’s cable with Ceiling Outfitter’s steel cable in order to provide for a more durable and resistant system.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Walt Wolf (youtube.com/watch?v=3zTcnoV2Xgw) teaches a horizontal lifeline setup where a safety cable is attached to a main cable and also attached to a hardness of a person.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, Amy R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP CHARLES ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612