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
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 1-5, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhaskarwar et al. (US 10828517), hereinafter Bhaskarwar.
Regarding claim 1, Bhaskarwar teaches of (fig. 7) a system comprising:
a self-retracting lifeline (self-retracting lifeline (SRL) 68) comprising at least one sensor (range finder 42 is part of the intelligent module 34) configured to measure distance parameter with respect to a position of the self-retracting lifeline (col. 5 line 51-col. 6 line 19, range finder 42 indicating a distance from the range finder 52 to a surface underlying the worksite); and
a device (intelligent module 34) coupled operationally with the self-retracting lifeline (seen in fig. 7), having a processor (processor 46) and a memory (col. 5 lines 54, processor 46 includes a memory) configured to store instructions which when executed by the processor causes the processor to:
receive the distance parameter with respect to the position of the self-retracting lifeline (col. 7 lines 19-20, processor 46 receives the signals from the range finder 42 for the distance parameter);
determine a lifeline extension limit based on the distance parameter (col. 7 lines 20-49, determines the vertical clearance distance, Dclearance, between the standing surface 27 of the worksite and the nearest underlying surface 28, and the vertical distance, Danchor, between the D-ring 20 on the harness 24 and the anchor point 10 and utilizes those distances in a calculation based on the total fall clearance calculation discussed above in the Background section); and
execute one or more operations upon reaching the lifeline extension limit, for a safety event, wherein the one or more operations comprise at least one of applying a brake to the self-retracting lifeline or triggering an alarm (col. 7 lines 50-56, If the processor 46 determines that the fall arrest device 32 and/or anchor point 10 are not appropriate, the processor 46 will command the user alert device 44 to send an alert to the user to either change to a different fall arrest device 32 or to change the vertical location of anchor point 10.).
Regarding claim 2, Bhaskarwar teaches of claim 1, and wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of:
a laser measurement unit configured to determine the distance parameter having a fall clearance distance and a safety working distance (col. 5 lines 61-64, range finder 42 can be a laser range finder. The range finder 42 is utilized to determine the vertical clearance, Danchor; col. 5 line 51-col. 6 line 19, range finder 42 indicating a distance from the range finder 42 to a surface underlying the worksite, which is the safety working distance); and
an odometer configured to determine extension of a lifeline cable from the self- retracting lifeline based on the distance parameter (processor 46 with the range finder 42 determines if the fall arrest device 32 is appropriate for the clearance distance, Dclearance, underlying the worksite. To find if the fall arrest device 32 is appropriate for the clearance distance, the range finder has an odometer able to determine how much of the lifeline cable is extended from the self-retracting lifeline).
Regarding claim 3, Bhaskarwar teaches of claim 2, and (fig. 5) wherein the fall clearance distance is the distance from a position of the self-retracting lifeline (SRL 68 is coupled with fall arrest device 32) to a next ground level (the nearest underlying surface 28) (the sum of Danchor, HD-ring, and Dclearance is the distance from a position of the SRL to the next ground level, which can be measured by the sensor 42), and the safety working distance is the distance from the position of the self-retracting lifeline (68) to a working surface (standing surface 27) (sum of Danchor and HD-ring is the distance from the position of the SRL to the working surface 27, which can be measured by the sensor 42).
Regarding claim 4, Bhaskarwar teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 5) wherein the lifeline extension limit corresponds to a maximum allowance limit of the lifeline cable (col. 7 lines 19-44, total fall clearance is calculated by the distances measured by the processor 46, which corresponds to a maximum allowance limit of the lifeline cable as discussed in the OSHA manual).
Regarding claim 5, Bhaskarwar teaches of claim 1, and further comprising:
a communication unit (fig. 4, user alert device 44) configured to transmit a notification to the user, based upon reaching the lifeline extension limit (col. 5 lines 51-60, if the fall arrest device 32 is not appropriate for the distance, to control the user alert device 44 to provide an alert to the user.); and
a reset unit configured to reset configuration, related to the distance parameter and the lifeline extension limit, after the completion of each operation of the self-retracting lifeline (col. 6 line 65-col. 7 line 11, the user alert device 44 can be of any suitable type/configuration or combination of types/configurations. The user alert device 44 can alert the user that the fall arrest device 32 is not appropriate and afterwards, can reset such that it alerts the user that the system 10 is safe to use based on the distance parameter and the lifeline extension limit).
Regarding claim 16, Bhaskarwar teaches of (fig. 7) a method comprising:
obtaining, via at least one sensor (range finder 42 is part of the intelligent module 34), a first distance (col. 5 line 51-col. 6 line 19, range finder 42 indicating a distance from the range finder 42 to a surface underlying the worksite), wherein the first distance is the distance from a position of a self-retracting lifeline (SRL 68 is coupled with fall arrest device 32) to a next ground level (fig. 5, the nearest underlying surface 28) (the sum of Danchor, HD-ring, and Dclearance is the distance from a position of the SRL to the next ground level, which can be measured by the sensor 42);
obtaining, via the at least one sensor (42), a second distance, wherein the second distance is the distance from the position of the self-retracting lifeline (68) to a working surface (standing surface 27) (sum of Danchor and HD-ring is the distance from the position of the SRL to the working surface 27, which can be measured by the sensor 42);
determining a lifeline extension limit of the lifeline cable based at least on the obtained first distance and the second distance (col. 7 lines 20-49, determines the vertical clearance distance, Dclearance, between the standing surface 27 of the worksite and the nearest underlying surface 28, and the vertical distance, Danchor, between the D-ring 20 on the harness 24 and the anchor point 10 and utilizes those distances in a calculation based on the total fall clearance calculation discussed above in the Background section); and
executing one or more operations upon reaching the lifeline extension limit, for a safety event, wherein the one or more operations comprise at least one of applying a brake to the lifeline cable or triggering an alarm (col. 7 lines 50-56, If the processor 46 determines that the fall arrest device 32 and/or anchor point 10 are not appropriate, the processor 46 will command the user alert device 44 to send an alert to the user to either change to a different fall arrest device 32 or to change the vertical location of anchor point 10.).
Regarding claim 17, Bhaskarwar teaches of claim 16, and wherein the lifeline extension limit corresponds to a maximum allowance limit of the lifeline cable (col. 7 lines 19-44, total fall clearance is calculated by the distances measured by the processor 46, which corresponds to a maximum allowance limit of the lifeline cable as discussed in the OSHA manual).
Regarding claim 18, Bhaskarwar teaches of claim 16, and further comprising:
transmitting, via a communication unit (fig. 4, user alert device 44), a notification to the user, based upon the reaching the lifeline extension limit (col. 5 lines 51-60, if the fall arrest device 32 is not appropriate for the distance, to control the user alert device 44 to provide an alert to the user.).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huset et al. (EP 3556438), hereinafter Huset.
Regarding claim 6, Huset teaches of a self-retracting lifeline (¶0044, may include a self-retracting lifeline) comprising:
a drum having a locking gear (¶0043, a brake may include a pawl mechanism) and a lifeline cable (figs. 1 and 3, safety lanyard 130, lanyard 315) wound around the drum (¶0011, the safety lanyard 130 may be coupled to and wound on a take-up spool);
at least one sensor (¶0012, pair of receivers 115A, 115B may be optical sensors) configured to measure distance parameter with respect to a position of the self-retracting lifeline (¶0015 and 0018-0019, pair of receivers 210A, 210B transmits a pair of baseband signals to the controller to determine an angle. The length of the lanyard may be extracted);
a processor (fig. 5, processor 505) configured to:
receive the distance parameter with respect to the position of the self-retracting lifeline (processor 505 is operably coupled to receiver 510, 515 to get the angle determination engine 525 and the position of the self-retracting lifeline);
determine a lifeline extension limit based on the distance parameter (fig. 6, ¶0034-0037, The DLSRD may control the braking force of a brake in response to the user’s nearness to the edge of the rooftop); and
actuate a drum stopper to apply brake to the lifeline cable, via the locking gear (¶0043, brake may include a pawl mechanism. DLSRD controllers may generate a braking signal engaging a pawl mechanism as a function of a proximity of a user to a safe operating area boundary), upon reaching the lifeline extension limit, for a safety event (fig. 6, process set 660, DLSRD applies a brake and/or produces a warning).
Regarding claim 7, Huset teaches of claim 6, and wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of:
a laser measurement unit configured to determine the distance parameter (¶0044, the DLSRS may include a wireless distance senso for laser-enable distance measurement) having a fall clearance distance (¶0046-0047, the system may include a pre-fall detection system to prevent the worker from falling from a dangerous height. The dangerous height is a fall clearance distance) and a safety working distance (¶0034-0037, the system learns a safety working distance of the platform); and
an odometer configured to determine extension of the lifeline cable from the self- retracting lifeline based on the distance parameter (fig. 6, ¶0034-0037, the system receives the extracted length of the lanyard such that it determines the extension of the lifeline cable from the retracting lifeline based on the distance parameter).
Regarding claim 8, Huset teaches of claim 7, and wherein the fall clearance distance is the distance from a position of the self-retracting lifeline to a next ground level (¶0047, altitude sensor may determine distance to a next ground level), and the safety working distance is the distance from the position of the self-retracting lifeline to a working surface (¶0034-0037, safety working distance is of the self-retracting lifeline to the working surface, which can be the top of the and the edge of the rooftop).
Regarding claim 9, Huset teaches of claim 6, and wherein the lifeline extension limit corresponds to a maximum allowance limit of the lifeline cable (figs. 2 and 4, ¶0034-0037, if the difference between the run-mode extraction length and the retrieved learned-distance for the specific run-mode angle is greater than a predetermined threshold, then execution continues to process step 660, where the DLSRD applies a brake and/or produces a warning. The threshold is the lifeline extension limit corresponding to the maximum allowance limit of the lifeline cable for safety on the working surface).
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 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskarwar in view of カールソン，ローレン ケイ (JP 2022527448), hereinafter Carlson.
Regarding claim 10, Bhaskarwar teaches of a device (figs. 7-8, intelligent module 34) comprising:
at least one sensor (range finder 42 is a part of intelligent module 34) configured to measure distance parameter with respect to a position of the self-retracting lifeline (col. 5 line 51-col. 6 line 19, range finder 42 indicating a distance from the range finder 52 to a surface underlying the worksite);
a processor (processor 46) configured to:
receive the distance parameter with respect to the position of the self-retracting lifeline (col. 7 lines 19-20, processor 46 receives the signals from the range finder 42 for the distance parameter);
determine a lifeline extension limit based on the distance parameter (col. 7 lines 20-49, determines the vertical clearance distance, Dclearance, between the standing surface 27 of the worksite and the nearest underlying surface 28, and the vertical distance, Danchor, between the D-ring 20 on the harness 24 and the anchor point 10 and utilizes those distances in a calculation based on the total fall clearance calculation discussed above in the Background section); and
trigger an alarm upon reaching the lifeline extension limit, for a safety event (col. 7 lines 50-56, If the processor 46 determines that the fall arrest device 32 and/or anchor point 10 are not appropriate, the processor 46 will command the user alert device 44 to send an alert to the user to either change to a different fall arrest device 32 or to change the vertical location of anchor point 10.).
Bhaskarwar does not appear to teach of at least one strap for coupling to a self-retracting lifeline;
Carlson teaches of at least one strap for coupling to a self-retracting lifeline (¶0032, the sensor module is located on a lifeline or covering on a lifeline or in a harness. The sensor module is attached to a component such as a strap).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhaskarwar to incorporate the teachings of Carlson of at least one strap for coupling to a self-retracting lifeline in order to adjustably secure the sensor module to the self-retracting lifeline.
Regarding claim 12, Bhaskarwar as modified teaches of claim 10, and further comprising:
a communication unit (fig. 4, user alert device 44) configured to transmit a notification to a user, based upon the triggering of the alarm (col. 5 lines 51-60, if the fall arrest device 32 is not appropriate for the distance, to control the user alert device 44 to provide an alert to the user.); and
a reset unit configured to reset configuration, related to the distance parameter and the lifeline extension limit, after each operation of the self-retracting lifeline (col. 6 line 65-col. 7 line 11, the user alert device 44 can be of any suitable type/configuration or combination of types/configurations. The user alert device 44 can alert the user that the fall arrest device 32 is not appropriate and afterwards, can reset such that it alerts the user that the system 10 is safe to use based on the distance parameter and the lifeline extension limit).
Regarding claim 13, Bhaskarwar as modified teaches of claim 10, and wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of:
a laser measurement unit configured to determine the distance parameter having a fall clearance distance and a safety working distance (col. 5 lines 61-64, range finder 42 can be a laser range finder. The range finder 42 is utilized to determine the vertical clearance, Danchor; col. 5 line 51-col. 6 line 19, range finder 42 indicating a distance from the range finder 52 to a surface underlying the worksite, which is the safety working distance); and
an odometer configured to determine extension of the lifeline cable from the self- retracting lifeline based on the distance parameter (processor 46 with the range finder 42 determines if the fall arrest device 32 is appropriate for the clearance distance, Dclearance, underlying the worksite. Dclearance is the extension of a lifeline cable from the SRL based on the distance parameter).
Regarding claim 14, Bhaskarwar as modified teaches of claim 13, and (fig. 5) wherein the fall clearance distance is the distance from a position of the self-retracting lifeline (SRL 68 is coupled with fall arrest device 32) to a next ground level (the nearest underlying surface 28) (the sum of Danchr, HD-ring, and Dclearance is the distance from a position of the SRL to the next ground level, which can be measured by the sensor 42), and the safety working distance is the distance from the position of the self-retracting lifeline (68) to a working surface (standing surface 27) (standing surface 27) (sum of Danchor and HD-ring is the distance from the position of the SRL to the working surface 27, which can be measured by the sensor 42).
Regarding claim 15, Bhaskarwar as modified teaches of claim 10, and (fig. 5) wherein the lifeline extension limit corresponds to a maximum allowance limit of the lifeline cable (col. 7 lines 19-44, total fall clearance is calculated by the distances measured by the processor 46, which corresponds to a maximum allowance limit of the lifeline cable as discussed in the OSHA manual).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskarwar, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yamashita et al. (JP 2006187502), hereinafter Yamashita, and Hermann et al. (US 8413763), hereinafter Hermann.
Regarding claim 11, Bhaskarwar as modified teaches of claim 10, but does not appear to teach of further comprising: at least one slot configured to receive a lifeline cable of multiple profiles; and a display unit configured to display the distance parameter and the lifeline extension limit.
Yamashita teaches of (fig. 4) at least one slot (slot at the bottom of speed governor 2) configured to receive a lifeline cable of multiple profiles (ropes 40a, 40b for wearing tools 50, 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhaskarwar to incorporate the teachings of Yamashita of at least one slot configured to receive a lifeline cable of multiple profiles in order to provide protect more than one user on the system.
Hermann teaches of a display unit (fig. 1, multi-element indicator 24) configured to display the distance parameter and the lifeline extension limit (col. 8 lines 15-34, the display unit 24 displays to the user the amount of line that has been deployed from the housing unit and at set threshold conditions displays indications to the user which is readily discerned. In this way the user can quickly recognize when they are nearing the end of their tethered distance, or the lifeline extension limit; Col. 9 lines 1-4, the device can have a line distance display.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhaskarwar to incorporate the teachings of Yamashita of further comprising: a display unit configured to display the distance parameter and the lifeline extension limit in order to notify the user quickly when they are nearing the lifeline extension limit as motivated by Hermann in col. 8 lines 15-34.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskarwar in view of Huset.
Regarding claim 19, Bhaskarwar teaches of claim 16, but does not appear to teach of further comprising: actuating a drum stopper to apply brake to the lifeline cable upon reaching the lifeline extension limit, for the safety event.
Huset teaches of actuating a drum stopper to apply brake to the lifeline cable (¶0043, brake may include a pawl mechanism. DLSRD controllers may generate a braking signal engaging a pawl mechanism as a function of a proximity of a user to a safe operating area boundary) upon reaching the lifeline extension limit, for the safety event (fig. 6, process set 660, DLSRD applies a brake and/or produces a warning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhaskarwar to incorporate the teachings of Huset of further comprising: actuating a drum stopper to apply brake to the lifeline cable upon reaching the lifeline extension limit, for the safety event in order to stop the user from proceeding past a dangerous distance.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOE TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-6pm EST.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/ZOE TAM TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3647