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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/11/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marak et al. in US Publication 2021/0128955.
Regarding Claim 1, Marak teaches a fall protection system comprising: an absorber assembly comprising an absorber body (115), the absorber body defining a nose portion (210) and a buffer portion (A, see below), wherein the absorber body is configured to transition from a non-deformed state (Fig. 1) to a deformed state (Fig. 8A) when the absorber body is subject to one or more loading forces, wherein the nose portion protrudes from the absorber body, the nose portion configured to engage with a notch (the inner side of 160) of a rail (160) when the absorber transitions from the non-deformed state to the deformed state, wherein the buffer portion is disposed adjacent to the nose portion and comprises a protrusion that juts out from the nose portion such that the buffer portion is configured to deflect against the rail (see Fig. 2B) when the absorber body transitions from the non-deformed state to the deformed state, and a shuttle body (140) configured to secure the fall protection system to the rail.
PNG
media_image1.png
672
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Marak teaches that the absorber body further defines one or more holes (B) configured to distribute the one or more loading forces throughout the absorber assembly during deformation.
Regarding Claim 4, Marak teaches (see Fig. 2A) that the absorber body comprises a single integrated piece.
Regarding Claim 5, Marak teaches a brake (240) disposed on an underside of the fall protection system, and wherein the buffer portion is disposed adjacent to the brake when the absorber body is in the non-deformed state.
Regarding Claim 6, Marak teaches that the absorber assembly comprises a shock absorber (225).
Regarding Claim 7, Marak teaches an attachment mechanism (135) configured to secure the fall protection system to a user, wherein the attachment mechanism is operably engaged with the absorber assembly by a fastening device (C).
Regarding Claim 8, Marak teaches that the attachment mechanism comprises a carabiner.
Regarding Claim 9, Marak teaches that the attachment mechanism comprises a base (D) configured to swivel such that the attachment mechanism is rotatable relative to the absorber assembly.
Regarding Claim 11, Marak teaches that the absorber body defines a line of deformation (E) along which the absorber body is configured to transition from the non-deformed state to the deformed state.
Regarding Claim 12, Marak teaches (see Fig. 2B) that the nose portion is configured to lock with a notch of the rail when the absorber body is in the deformed state.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marak as applied to Claim 1 above. Marak is silent on the exact force loaded on the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device such that the loading force is a force ranging up to 16kilo-Newtons in order to provide for the safe use by a person who, when falling, produces such a force to the device, since such a change would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized a being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marak as applied to Claim 12 above in view of Roth et al. in US Publication 2016/0059055. Marak is silent on the nature of the rail. Roth teaches a fall protection system including a rail (120) integrated into a ladder (see Claim 9). 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 device of Marak by using it on a rail that is part of a ladder as taught by Roth in order to protect the user when on a ladder.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and its dependent claims 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 NOAH C. HAWK whose telephone number is (571)272-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5:30pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
NOAH C. HAWK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Noah C. Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights