DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are currently pending. Claims 5-10 and 13-16 are indicated as having allowable subject matter. Claims 1-4, 11 and 12 are maintained in rejection despite the amendment/arguments filed 03/04/2026. A response to Applicant’s arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richardson (US 2021/0061316 A1) (“Richardson ‘316”).
Referring to Claim 1: Richardson ‘316 discloses a zipline trolley comprising:
a wheel (20) that rides on a zip line cable (45);
an array of toothed slots (30d) disposed downslope from the wheel (Fig. 25) (Para. [0129]);
a slope adjustment pin (68) that is fixed downward into a first toothed slot of an array of toothed slots to vary braking force for varying cable slopes (Fig. 25) (Para. [0129]);
at least one selection tab (35) coupled to the zipline trolley and having an egg-shaped slot (35a) that connects the slope adjustment pin to a rider (Fig. 25) (Para. [0129]);
a brake pad (25) disposed downslope from the slope adjustment pin, wherein a weight of the rider rotates the brake pad about the wheel to apply a braking force (Fig. 25B) (Para. [0129]); and
a redundant safety axle (69 or 69a) separate from the slope adjust pin (68) (Figs. 25 and 25A) (Para. [0129]).
Referring to Claim 2: Richardson ‘316 discloses the zipline trolley of claim 1, wherein the brake pad (25) is supported by a brake pad axle (41) (Para. [0092]) configured to rotate 360 degrees about a brake pad (Figs. 25J-25N) (Para. [0133]) (abstract, “four-sided rotational brake pad”).
Referring to Claim 3: Richardson ‘316 discloses the zipline trolley of claim 1, wherein a hole (30e) (Fig. 25E) (Para. [0134]) exposes the first toothed slot (30d) in the array of toothed slots to identify a proper adjustment pin setting (Fig. 25) (Para. [0129]).
Referring to Claim 4: Richardson ‘316 discloses the zipline trolley of claim 3, wherein the hole (30e) (Fig. 25E) (Para. [0134]) further exposes a number (71e) corresponding to the first toothed slot (Fig. 25) (Para. [0128]) (see also position one identified by 30a in Fig. 25D and described in Para. [0133]).
Referring to Claim 12: Richardson ‘316 discloses the zipline trolley of claim 4, wherein a wire clasp pin (68a) retains the brake pad axle (41) and permits brake pad (25) indexing at a plurality of angular positions including 90°, 180°, 270°, and 360° (“a four-sided rotational brake pad”, abstract) (Fig. 25) (Para. [0128-0129]).
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson ‘316.
Referring to Claim 11: Richardson ‘316 does not specifically teach that the array of toothed slots comprises 11 positions. Rather, Richardson ‘316 teaches that the array of toothed slots comprises 7 positions (Fig. 25D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Richardson ‘316 to increase the number of toothed slots to 11 positions, in order to provide more increments in braking force, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, Richardson ‘316 does not specifically teach “a secondary friction brake disposed above the cable and in front of the brake pad, the secondary friction brake engaging the cable in response to failures of the brake pad, a brake pad pin, and an axle.” The additional reference Sulc et al. (US 2020/0346671 A1) teaches fall protection locking systems, wherein “the braking lever 110 may also include a secondary braking surface 141, such that the secondary braking surface 141 is configured to engage the guide member 510 after the braking surface 140 to provide additional friction to slow down and stop the motion the locking system 100.” (Para. [0057]) (Fig. 5B). However, Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Richardson ‘316 with the secondary braking surface of Sulc disposed at the specifically claimed location above the cable and in front of the brake pad, as recited in amended claim 5.
Regarding claim 6 and depending claims 7-10, 15 and 16, Richardson ‘316 does not specifically teach “a spring assembly comprising two springs joined by two spring spacer discs, each springer space disc comprising a grooved cut slot that nest a spring hook of the spring and inhibit rotation of the springs, the two spring spacer discs each comprising a protruding tab and corresponding slot that lock together to join the two springs,” as recited in amended claim 6. Richardson ‘316 teaches a disc (18) that locks two springs (16) (Fig. 15) (Para. [0115-0119]), comprising a grooved cut slot (59) (Fig. 15) (Para. [0118]). However, Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Richardson ‘316 to meet these specific amended spring assembly limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Richardson ‘316 does not specifically teach “a locating safety pin that prevents the zipline trolley from bouncing off the zipline cable, the locating safety pin comprising anti-twist handles, wherein when the anti-twist handles are released, side tabs of the zipline trolley are separated for removing the zipline trolley from the cable.” Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Richardson ‘316 with the claimed anti-twist handles.
Regarding claim 14, Richardson ‘316 does not specifically teach “bent tabs at distal and proximal ends of the zipline trolley that retain life safety carabiners connected to the rider.” Richardson ‘316 does teach a hole 40 at a distal end of the zipline trolley that retains a life safety carabiner 50a (Para. [0084]) (Fig. 1). However, Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Richardson ‘316 with the claimed bent tabs at distal and proximal ends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Richardson ‘316 does not teach the claimed slope adjustment pin, nor the egg-shaped slot that connects the slope adjustment pin to a rider, nor the redundant safety axle, as recited in amended claim 1. Examiner responds that Richardson ‘316 does teach the claimed slope adjustment pin (68) (Para. [0129]), as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above. Further, the oval slot (35a) of Richardson ‘316 may be broadly, but reasonably, interpreted as “egg-shaped”, as the instant application offers no special definition for “egg-shaped”, and one is left with the plain meaning of the term (see MPEP § 2111.01). Eggs can vary greatly in shape and the term egg-shaped is synonymous with other terms such as oval, ovate, ovoid, oviform, ovoidal, etc. Further still, Richardson ‘316 teaches two components (69 or 69a) that may be reasonably interpreted as the claimed redundant safety axle (Figs. 25 and 25A) (Para. [0129]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617