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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this application, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,931,606 in view of 3M Bulletin (NPL-W).
The scope of claims 1-9 is encompassed by the claims of the patent except that they fail to disclose a hook eye configured to receive a lateral load of 3600 pounds and only deform such that a gap does not exceed 0.125 inches. However, 3M teaches a hook eye configured to receive a lateral load of 3600 pounds and only deform such that a gap does not exceed 0.125 inches. 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 hook with the hook eye and deformation standards detailed in the 3M bulletin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a hook that complies with the latest standard provided for fall protection manufactures by the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) (3M; Pg. 1, Par. 2).
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,931,606. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the pending claims is encompassed by the claim of the patent.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a hook opening passing through the front and back sides thereof, a opening communicating to the right side of said hook opening, a hook nose arranged at a free end of said hook head and located above said opening, a hook eye arranged below said hook opening, and an energy absorption area arranged on said hook body and located to the left side of said hook opening, wherein said opening has a dimension of more than 1 inch from the top end to the bottom end”. This should read “a hook opening passing through front and sides thereof, an opening communicating to a right side of said hook opening, a hook nose arranged at a free end of said hook head and located above said opening, a hook eye arranged below said hook opening, and an energy absorption area arranged on said hook body and located to a left side of said hook opening, wherein said opening has a dimension of more than 1 inch from a top end to a bottom end” (emphasis added).
Claims 2 and 19 each recite “the longitudinal centerline”. This should read “a longitudinal centerline” (emphasis added).
Claims 3 and 18 each recite “the structural thickness of said resistance point directly above said energy absorption area is symmetrically thickened than the structural thickness of said resistance point above said hook nose”. This should read “a structural thickness of said resistance point directly above said energy absorption area is symmetrically thicker than a structural thickness of said resistance point above said hook nose” (emphasis added).
Claim 4 recites “the top end of the column”. This should read “a top end of the column” (emphasis added).
Claim 5 recites “the bottom of the longitudinal column”. This should read “a bottom of the longitudinal column” (emphasis added).
Claim 6 recites “the right side of said energy absorption area”. This should read “a right side of said energy absorption area” (emphasis added).
Claim 7 recites “said energy absorption area arranged between said hook eye and the top of said hook head, wherein said energy absorption area is a channel laterally passing through the left and right side of said hook body”. This should read “said energy absorption area is arranged between said hook eye and the top end of said hook head, wherein said energy absorption area is a channel laterally passing through a left and right side of said hook body” (emphasis added).
Claim 8 recites “wherein an end of said hook head is affixed between the top end of said front board and the top end of said back board in a clamping manner, wherein said hook eye has an intermediate block affixed between the bottom end of said front board and the bottom end of said back board in a clamping manner, wherein said hook head and said intermediate block control and keep said energy absorption area between the back side of said front board and the front side of said back board”. This should read “wherein an end of said hook head is affixed between a top end of said front board and a top end of said back board in a clamping manner, wherein said hook eye has an intermediate block affixed between a bottom end of said front board and a bottom end of said back board in a clamping manner, wherein said hook head and said intermediate block control and keep said energy absorption area between a back side of said front board and a front side of said back board” (emphasis added).
Claim 11 recites “the right side of said second groove”. This should read “a right side of said second groove” (emphasis added).
Claim 12 recites “the left side of said front board and said back board” and “the bottom end of said second axle”. This should read “a left side of said front board and said back board” and “a bottom end of said second axle” (emphasis added).
Claim 14 recites “a gate member, having a first end mounted on said main body and a second end comprising a male buckle, adapted for detachably coupled with said hook nose, so as to allow said gate member to open and close said opening, wherein the thickness of said hook body is greater than the thickness of said hook head”. This should read “a gate member, having a first end mounted on said main body and a second end comprising a male buckle, adapted to detachably couple with said hook nose, so as to allow said gate member to open and close said opening, wherein a thickness of said hook body is greater than a thickness of said hook head” (emphasis added).
Claim 15 recites “said gate member is operatable for opening said opening”. This should read “said gate member is operable for opening said opening” (emphasis added).
Claim 17 recites “said hook head is affixed between the top end of said front board and the top end of said back board”, “fixed between the bottom end of said front board and the bottom end of said back board”, and “adapted for detachably coupled”. This should read “said hook head is affixed between a top end of said front board and a top end of said back board”, “fixed between a bottom end of said front board and a bottom end of said back board”, and “adapted for detachably coupling” (emphasis added).
Claim 18 recites “an energy absorption area arranged on said hook body and located to the left side of said hook opening, a first resistance point located above said energy absorption area and at a position that said hook head is clamped between said back board and said front board, and a second resistance point located above said hook nose of said hook head, wherein the structural thickness of said first resistance point above said energy absorption area is symmetrically thickened compared to the structural thickness of said second resistance point above said hook nose of said hook head”. This should read “an energy absorption area is arranged on said hook body and located to a left side of said hook opening, a first resistance point located above said energy absorption area and at a position that said hook head is clamped between said back board and said front board, and a second resistance point located above said hook nose of said hook head, wherein a structural thickness of said first resistance point above said energy absorption area is symmetrically thickened compared to a structural thickness of said second resistance point above said hook nose of said hook head” (emphasis added).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1, 15, and 17 each recite the limitation "the safety". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1-5 each recite steps of a method in testing the deformation of a hook, however as the claims are directed towards the hook apparatus the presence of method limitations is indefinite. For purposes of examination, limitations directed towards the apparatus (i.e. structure) of the hook that is configured to deform in the stated manner have been considered and limitations directed towards the testing process (i.e. resistance points, static testing, dynamic testing) have not as they are not elements of the product being claimed but of a process used to develop a characteristic of the apparatus.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the power source applies the 3600 pound load upward to pull said hook eye, causing the edge of the resistance base to squeeze said resistance points”. It is unclear how a 3,600 pound load can be determined by applying a 3,600 pound load as the load is clearly a known variable and as such nothing has been “determined”.
Claims 9, 16, and 20 each recite the limitation "the pinning". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the original position" on Pg. 18, Ln. 21-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said passage" on Pg.18, Ln. 29; Pg. 19, Ln. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the two sides of said baffle" on Pg. 19, Ln. 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites "a first hole provided in the manner that said first groove, said second groove, said third groove, said fourth groove, and said first hole are all located on the lower portion of said energy absorption area". - It is unclear what manner is being referenced in this limitation. Clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites “when the gate member closes the opening and the safety hook falls and collides, the hook body will first contact a collision object, and an impact force will be absorbed by the hook body first to ensure that the hook head does not deform and allows the gate member to close the opening”. Applicant is claiming a structure that ensures the body will contact an object first, but as every fall is different it is unclear how this is possible. A limitation based on an unexpected drop in an uncontrolled situation is indefinite.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "said intermediate block" on Pg. 21, Ln. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6-8, 13, and 18-19 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected claims 1, 9, and 17.
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 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perner (US 9,961,839), hereafter referred to as Perner '839, in view of 3M Bulletin (NPL-W).
Regarding Claim 1, Perner '839 discloses an anti-torque safety hook, comprising: a main body (Perner '839: Fig. 8-12; 2102, 2600), having a hook head (Perner '839: Fig. 8; 2102a), a hook body (Perner '839: Fig. 8-12; 2102b, 2600) connected with a top end of said hook head, a hook opening passing through the front and back sides thereof, a opening communicating to the right side of said hook opening, a hook nose (Perner '839: Annotated Fig. 11; N) arranged at a free end of said hook head and located above said opening, a hook eye (Perner '839: Fig. 8; 2102c) arranged below said hook opening, and an energy absorption area (Perner '839: Fig. 8-12; 2102b, 2600; Col. 9, Ln. 36-45) arranged on said hook body and located to the left side of said hook opening, a gate member (Perner '839: Fig. 8-12; 2400), having a first end mounted on said main body and a second end comprising a male buckle (Perner '839: Fig. 5A; 404c), adapted for detachably coupled with said hook nose, so as to allow said gate member to open and close said opening; and a detent member (Perner '839: Fig. 8-12; 2300), coupled on said main body and maintained at a first position, so as for ensuring that said gate member closes said opening, wherein when said detent member is operated and switched to a second position, the safety is disarmed.
Perner ‘839 fails to disclose wherein said opening has a dimension of more than 1 inch from the top end to the bottom end thereof; and when an anchor point is buckled into said hook opening through said opening to hang said safety hook, the anchor point abuts the top end of said hook opening as a fulcrum, and a lateral load of 3600 pounds is applied to said hook eye, wherein two resistance points located directly above said energy absorption area and above said hook nose, said energy absorption area is sufficient to provide deformation response to said main body, ensuring that said gate member does not detach from said hook nose and effectively controlling a gap between said gate member and said hook nose to not exceed 0.125 inches. However, 3M teaches an opening having a dimension of more than 1 inch from the top end to the bottom end thereof (3M: Pg. 1, Par. 3); and when an anchor point is buckled into said hook opening through said opening to hang said safety hook, the anchor point abuts the top end of said hook opening as a fulcrum, and a lateral load of 3600 pounds is applied to said hook eye, wherein two resistance points located directly above said energy absorption area and above said hook nose, said energy absorption area is sufficient to provide deformation response to said main body, ensuring that said gate member does not detach from said hook nose and effectively controlling a gap between said gate member and said hook nose to not exceed 0.125 inches (3M: Fig. 13, 15; Pg. 1, Par. 3; Pg. 2, Par. 2).
Perner ‘839 and the 3M bulletin are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. attachment hooks. 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 hook in Perner ‘839 to comply with the deformation standards detailed in the 3M bulletin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a hook that complies with the latest standard provided for fall protection manufactures by the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) (3M; Pg. 1, Par. 2).
In regards to Claim 2, Perner '839, as modified, teaches the anti-torque safety hook, as recited in claim 1, wherein said gate member (Perner '839: Fig. 8-12; 2400) opens said opening and is parallel to the longitudinal centerline formed by said main body, a distance between said resistance point and the top of said gate member is controlled to not exceed 1/ 8 inches.
In regards to Claim 4, Perner '839, as modified, teaches the anti-torque safety hook, as recited in claim 2, wherein the 3,600 pound load (3M: Pg. 2, Par. 2) was determined through a static testing, wherein the static test included a jig for horizontal placement of said main body, a column for being locked in said hook opening, a resistance base located at the top end of the column, and a power source externally connected to said hook eye, wherein the power source applies the 3600 pound load upward to pull said hook eye, causing the edge of the resistance base to squeeze said resistance points.
In regards to Claim 5, Perner '839, as modified, teaches the anti-torque safety hook, as recited in claim 2, wherein the 3,600 pound load (3M: Pg. 2, Par. 2) was determined through a dynamic test, wherein the dynamic test is to lock a longitudinal column in said hook opening, a resistance plate is installed at the bottom of the longitudinal column, so that said main body is laterally placed against the resistance plate, and the resistance point is contacted with the edge of the resistance plate, and then, one end of a lanyard is connected to the end of said hook eye, the other end of the lanyard is fixed with a counterweight, wherein the counterweight is positioned by a hoist at a lateral distance of no more than 12 inches from the end of said hook eye, and the hoist controls the counterweight to obtain the required drop height for the 3,600 pound load, allowing the dynamic test to be performed after the hoist quickly releases the counterweight.
In regards to Claim 6, Perner '839, as modified, teaches the anti-torque safety hook, as recited in claim 1, wherein the gate member (Perner '839: Fig. 8-12; 2400), male buckle (Perner '839: Fig. 5A; 404c) and hook nose are located on the right side of said energy absorption area (Perner '839: Fig. 8-12; 2102b, 2600; Col. 9, Ln. 36-45).
In regards to Claim 7, Perner '839, as modified, teaches the anti-torque safety hook, as recited in claim 6, wherein said energy absorption area (Perner '839: Fig. 8-12; 2102b, 2600; Col. 9, Ln. 36-45) arranged between said hook eye and the top of said hook head, wherein said energy absorption area is a channel laterally passing through the left and right side of said hook body.
In regards to Claim 8, Perner '839, as modified, teaches the anti-torque safety hook, as recited in claim 7, wherein said hook body has a symmetrically shaped front board and back board (Perner '839: Fig. 12-14; 2122), wherein an end of said hook head is affixed between the top end of said front board and the top end of said back board in a clamping manner, wherein said hook eye has an intermediate block (Perner '839: Fig. 8-12; 2102c) affixed between the bottom end of said front board and the bottom end of said back board in a clamping manner, wherein said hook head and said intermediate block control and keep said energy absorption area between the back side of said front board and the front side of said back board.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perner (US 9,961,839) in view of 3M Bulletin (NPL-W) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Garcia (US 4,358,880).
In regards to Claim 3, Perner '839, as modified, teaches the anti-torque safety hook, as recited in claim 2, but fails to disclose the structural thickness of said resistance point directly above said energy absorption area is symmetrically thickened than the structural thickness of said resistance point above said hook nose, so that said 3600 pound load will first apply on said resistance point directly above said energy absorption area, and then apply on said resistance point above the hook nose.
However, Garcia teaches a structural thickness (Garcia: Fig. 2; 532) of a point directly above an energy absorption area is symmetrically thickened than the structural thickness of said point (Garcia: Fig. 2; 530) above a hook nose, so that a load will first apply on said resistance point directly above said energy absorption area, and then apply on said resistance point above the hook nose.
Perner ‘839 and Garcia are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. attachment hooks. 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 hook body in Perner ‘839 with the thickness from Garcia, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a portion on the hook body that further reinforces the structure (Garcia: Col. 3, Ln. 38-44), thereby increasing the strength of the hook when rigid.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perner (US 9,707,419), hereafter referred to as Perner '419, in view of Garcia (US 4,358,880).
In regards to Claim 14, Perner '419 discloses an anti-torque safety hook, comprising: a hook body (Perner '419: Fig. 1A-3; 102, 112, 130); a hook head (Perner '419: Fig. 1A-3; 140), one end of which is connected to said hook body, and defines a hook opening that runs through the front and rear directions of said safety hook and forms an opening between the free end of said hook head and said hook body that communicates with the hook opening; and a gate member (Perner '419: Fig. 1A-3; 180), having a first end mounted on said main body and a second end comprising a male buckle (Perner '419: Fig. 1A-3; 180a), adapted for detachably coupled with said hook nose, so as to allow said gate member to open and close said opening, when the gate member closes the opening and the safety hook falls and collides, the hook body will first contact a collision object, and an impact force will be absorbed by the hook body first to ensure that the hook head does not deform and allows the gate member to close the opening (Perner ‘419; Col. 9, Ln. 23-45).
Perner ‘419 fails to explicitly disclose that the thickness of said hook body is greater than the thickness of said hook head. However, Garcia teaches a thickness (Garcia: Fig. 2; 532) of a hook body (Garcia: Fig. 2; 510) that is greater than a thickness of a hook head (Garcia: Fig. 2; 530).
Perner '419 and Garcia are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. attachment hooks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the hook body in Perner ‘419 with the thickness from Garcia, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a portion on the hook body that further reinforces the structure (Garcia: Col. 3, Ln. 38-44), thereby increasing the strength of the hook when under tension (Perner ‘419; Col. 5, Ln. 53-67).
In regards to Claim 15, Perner '419, as modified, teaches the anti-torque safety hook, as recited in claim 14, further comprising a detent member (Perner '419: Fig. 1A-3; 160), coupled on a main body and maintained at a first position, so as for ensuring that said gate member (Perner '419: Fig. 1A-3; 180) closes said opening, wherein when said detent member is operated and switched to a second position, the safety is disarmed, so that said gate member is operatable for opening said opening.
In regards to Claim 16, Perner '419, as modified, teaches the anti-torque safety hook, as recited in claim 15, further comprising a hook eye (Perner '419: Fig. 1A-7; 200, 220, 234) mounted at the bottom of the hook body and located below the hook opening, wherein said hook eye is formed by said intermediate block (Perner '419: Fig. 1A-7; 200), a main bolt (Perner '419: Fig. 1A-7; 234), and a breaking bolt (Perner '419: Fig. 1A-7; 220), wherein said intermediate block has a covered portion and a bare portion, wherein said covered portion is arranged at the bottom end of said hook body and affixed through the pinning of said main bolt and said breaking bolt, wherein the strength of said breaking bolt is lower than the strength of said main bolt, wherein said bare portion has a hanging hole (Perner '419: Fig. 1A-7; 203) penetrated thereon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
614
389
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Perner '839: Fig. 11
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631