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 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson et al. (11,472,685) hereinafter Thompson.
Thompson discloses:
Claim 1: A method, comprising:
determining a number of operators positioned within a passenger basket of a lift system (Fig. 4; 404, Col. 9, Lines 63-67) based on data received from one or more sensors (Fig. 3; 212/214), the passenger basket comprising plural safety anchors (Fig. 2A; 206), wherein each of the plural safety anchors is configured to receive a safety key (Fig. 2A; 208);
determining a number of safety keys that are operably coupled with the plural safety anchors (Fig. 4; 406, Col. 10, Lines 24-32);
comparing the number of operators that are positioned within the passenger basket with the number of safety keys that are operably coupled with the plural safety anchors (Fig. 4; 408, Col. 10, Lines 24-32); and
prohibiting one or more operations of the passenger basket responsive to determining that the number of operators positioned within the passenger basket is different than the number of safety keys that are operably coupled with the plural safety anchors (Fig. 4; 412, Col. 10, Lines 33-43).
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a location of each of the plural safety anchors that are operably coupled with at least one of the safety keys (Fig. 3; via triangulation, Col. 6, Lines 39-42, Col. 10, Lines 13-21); and
controlling the one or more operations of the passenger basket responsive to determining the location of each of the plural safety anchors that are operably coupled with the at least one of the safety keys (Fig. 4; 410, Col. 10, Lines 13-33).
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more operations of the passenger basket includes one or more of moving the passenger basket in a vertical direction between plural different elevations, moving the passenger basket in a lateral direction, or changing a state of a locking system of a gate of the passenger basket to an unlocked state (Col. 4, Lines 26-34).
Claim 5: The method of claim 1, further comprising communicating an alert responsive to determining that the number of operators positioned within the passenger basket is different than the number of safety keys that are operably coupled with the plural safety anchors (Fig. 3; 310, Col. 9, Lines 3-13).
Claim 6: The method of claim 1, further comprising allowing the one or more operations of the passenger basket responsive to determining that the number of operators positioned within the passenger basket is the same as the number of safety keys that are operably coupled with the plural safety anchors of the passenger basket (Fig. 4; Col. 10, Lines 13-43).
Claim 7: The method of claim 6, further comprising:
identifying that the number of safety keys operably coupled with the safety anchors has changed (Fig. 4; Col. 10, Lines 13-43);
determining that the number of operators positioned within the passenger basket is different than the number of safety keys operably coupled with the plural safety anchors of the passenger basket (Fig. 4; Col. 10, Lines 13-43); and
prohibiting the one or more operations of the passenger basket responsive to determining that the number of operators positioned within the passenger basket is different than the number of safety keys that are operably coupled with the plural safety anchors (Fig. 4; Col. 10, Lines 13-43).
Claim 8: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying one or more loads positioned within the passenger basket based at least in part on the data received from the one or more sensors (Fig. 4; Col. 10, Lines 13-43); and
differentiating the one or more loads from the number of operators positioned within the passenger basket (Fig. 4; Col. 10, Lines 13-43).
Claim 9: A fall protection system, comprising:
safety anchors (Fig. 2A; 206) operably coupled with a passenger basket (Fig. 2A; 202) of a lift system, each of the safety anchors configured to receive a safety key (Fig. 2A; 208), one or more operators (Fig. 2A; 204) configured to be positioned within the passenger basket; and
a controller (Fig. 3; 302, Col. 7, Lines 36-51) including one or more processors (Fig. 3; 304, Col. 7, Lines 36-51) configured to receive data from one or more sensors (Fig. 3; 212/214, Col. 7, Lines 36-51), the controller configured to determine a number of operators positioned within the passenger basket based on the data received from the one or more sensors (Fig. 4; 404, Col. 10, Lines 24-32),
wherein the controller is configured to compare the number of operators that are positioned within the passenger basket with a number of safety keys that are operably coupled with the safety anchors (Fig. 4; 408, Col. 10, Lines 24-32), and
wherein the controller is configured to prohibit one or more operations of the passenger basket responsive to determining that the number of operators positioned within the passenger basket is different than the number of safety keys that are operably coupled with the safety anchors (Fig. 4; 412, Col. 10, Lines 33-43).
Claim 10: The fall protection system of claim 9, wherein the passenger basket is configured to be controlled to move between plural different elevations to move the one or more operators between the plural different elevations (Col. 4, Lines 26-34).
Claim 11: The fall protection system of claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to control a communication device to communicate an alert (Fig. 3; 310, Col. 9, Lines 3-13) responsive to determining that the number of operators positioned within the passenger basket is different than the number of safety keys that are operably coupled with the safety anchors (Fig. 4; 412, Col. 10, Lines 33-43).
Claim 12: The fall protection system of claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to allow the one or more operations of the passenger basket responsive to determining that the number of operators positioned within the passenger basket is the same as the number of safety keys that are operably coupled with the safety anchors (Fig. 4; 410, Col. 10, Lines 13-33).
Claim 13: The fall protection system of claim 9, wherein the one or more operations of the passenger basket includes one or more of moving the passenger basket in a vertical direction between plural different elevations, moving the passenger basket in a lateral direction, or changing a state of a locking system of a gate of the passenger basket to an unlocked state (Col. 4, Lines 26-34).
Claim 14: The fall protection system of claim 9, wherein the one or more sensors includes one or more of a position sensor (Fig. 3; via triangulation, Col. 6, Lines 39-42), a camera, a pressure sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a collision sensor, or an infrared sensor.
Claim 15: The fall protection system of claim 9, wherein the one or more sensors are operably coupled with the passenger basket (Fig. 2A; 214).
Claim 16: The fall protection system of claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to identify one or more loads positioned within the passenger basket based at least in part on the data received from the one or more sensors (Fig. 4; 404, Col. 10, Lines 24-32), and the controller is configured to differentiate the one or more loads from the number of operators positioned within the passenger basket (Fig. 4; 408, Col. 10, Lines 24-32).
Claim 17: A method, comprising:
comparing, with one or more processors, a number of occupants positioned within a passenger basket of a lift system with a number of safety keys that are operably coupled with corresponding safety anchors of the passenger basket (Fig. 4; 408, Col. 10, Lines 24-32); and
prohibiting one or more operations of the passenger basket responsive to determining that the number of occupants is different than the number of safety keys that are operably coupled with at least one of the safety anchors (Fig. 4; 412, Col. 10, Lines 33-43).
Claim 18: The method of claim 17, wherein the one or more operations of the passenger basket includes one or more of moving the passenger basket in a vertical direction between plural different elevations, moving the passenger basket in a lateral direction, or changing a state of a locking system of a gate of the passenger basket to an unlocked state (Col. 4, Lines 26-34).
Claim 19: The method of claim 17, further comprising communicating an alert responsive to determining that the number of occupants positioned within the passenger basket is different than the number of safety keys that are operably coupled with the corresponding safety anchors (Fig. 3; 310, Col. 9, Lines 3-13).
Claim 20: The method of claim 17, further comprising:
identifying a location of each of the safety anchors that are operably coupled with at least one of the safety keys (Fig. 3; via triangulation, Col. 6, Lines 39-42); and
controlling the one or more operations of the passenger basket responsive to determining the location of each of the safety anchors (Fig. 4; 410, Col. 10, Lines 13-33).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (11,472,685) hereinafter Thompson, in view of Shankar et al. (2024/0034607) hereinafter Shankar.
Claim 2: Thompson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plural safety anchors includes one or more interior safety anchors that are disposed on an interior portion of the passenger basket (Fig. 2A; 206) but fails to disclose one or more exterior safety anchors that are disposed on an exterior portion of the passenger basket.
However, Shankar discloses an exterior safety anchor (Fig. 2; 150).
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 passenger basket of Thompson to include the exterior safety anchor, as taught by Shankar, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow a variety of anchoring points for operators based on what area they area of the basket they working in.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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
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
Prosecution Insights