DETAILED ACTION Drawings The drawings are objected to because it is unclear what structural member the ‘cooperative member 60’ is formed into. This appears to be a rail/support that should be numerically identified for clarity. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 3,4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 3 and 4 depend from themselves. Also with respect to claim 4 the limitation of “… the spring has a first member (i.e. 100 in the figures) operatively connected to the spring.. ” is unclear. How does the spring have a ‘first member’ connected to itself? Element 100 is a separate and distinct structural member from the spring and should be claimed as such. 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. C laim(s) 1- 4,6,7,9- 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Bruns 6,553,716 . Regarding claim 1, as broadly claimed, Bruns shows in figures 1 and 3-6: A free-fall safety device for installation on a machine assembly 1,3,6,10,12 having a load (i.e. weight of door panels 10,12) , the device comprising: A base member 80 having a locking member 95 disposed thereon; A lifting member 8,8a, 84 releasably secured (i.e. capable of being released) to the base member 80 , the lifting member 12,84 for supporting the load (weight of panel 12) in position on the machine assembly; wherein the base member 80 is rotatable in response to a reduction in tension applied to the lifting member (8,8a,,84) , in order to engage the locking member 95 to lock the base member 80 and lifting member (8,8a,84) in position on the machine assembly ( note the cable at 84 may only loosen and not break completely—also other parts of the lifting member 8,8a may fail/come loose ) Regarding claim 2, as broadly claimed, Bruns shows a moveable member 74,110 ‘ operatively connected to ’ the base member 80 and the lifting member 8,8a,84 , such that force exerted by movement of the lifting member causes decompression of the moveable member 74,110 , which in turn causes the base member 80 to rotate into a locked position on the machine assembly (fig 5) . Regarding claim 3 , as broadly claimed, Bruns shows the moveable member is a spring. Regarding claim 4 , as broadly claimed, Bruns shows the spring 110 has a first member 90 operatively connected to the spring where the first member is positioned to contact the spring and receive an upward force applied by the spring in its resting position (fig 4) . Regarding claim 6 , as broadly claimed, Bruns shows the locking member 95 comprises a first locking member 97 and a cooperative locking member 102 , wherein the first locking member 97 and the cooperative locking member 102 are capable of engaging together in response to rotation of the base member 80 , in order to lock the lifting member in position on the machine assembly (fig 5) Regarding claim 7 , as broadly claimed, Bruns shows the cooperative locking member 102 is ‘ connected to ’ the machine assembly and disposed substantially adjacent to the base member 80 . Regarding claim 9 , as broadly claimed, Bruns shows that rotation of the base member 80 is achieved by use of a pivot member 87 disposed on the base member, wherein the base member 80 rotates around the pivot member 87 . Regarding claim 10 , as broadly claimed, Bruns shows that the pivot member is not medially disposed on the base member (figs 4,5) . Regarding claim 11 , as broadly claimed, Bruns shows that the pivot member 87 is disposed on the ‘ same side ’ of the base member 80 as the at least one locking member 95 relative to the lifting member (in the vertical direction) . Regarding claim 12 , as broadly claimed, Bruns shows that the pivot member is a pivot point which permits rotation of the base member relative to the machine assembly, where the base member rotatably “ connected to ” (even if indirectly) the machine assembly 3,6 via the pivot point 87 . Regarding claim 13 , as broadly claimed, Bruns shows the moveable member 110 and the locking member 95 are disposed on opposite sides of the base member 80 , with the lifting member 8,84 positioned therebetween. Regarding claim 1 4 , as broadly claimed, Bruns shows the moveable member 110 is a resilient energy storage member which is held in its resting state by tension applied by the lifting member 8,8a,84 , wherein decompression of the moveable member will release stored energy in the resilient energy storage member, and cause the base member 80 to rotate into a locked position. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 5 ,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruns in view of Guyard U.S. 2012/0181494 . Regarding claim 5 Bruns specifically lacks showing a belt at 84. The reference to Guyard indicates that belts, cables or chains can be used in lifting devices in para 0024: [0024] It should be noted here that throughout this document, strap is to be taken in the broad sense of the term as designating any flexible, non extensible long narrow element, particularly cables, chains and belts . One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used a belt of some well known commercially available type in place of the cable arrangement 84 in Bruns, simply as the obvious substitution of one well known securing/tensioning device over another. Regarding claim 8, as broadly claimed, Bruns lacks specifically show ing a securement member for releasably securing the base member 80 to the lifting member 8,84 . However in light of the modification above— and depending upon the choice of ‘lifting member’ arrangement (i.e. cable or belt or chain) it would have been obvious to have utilized some type of fastener arrangement to secure the base member 80 to the lifting member 84. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 15 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7123 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M. . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Rob Siconolfi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7124 . 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. /CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 2/20/26