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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/27/2026. Applicant’s arguments were found persuasive and the election/restriction requirement has been withdrawn. Claims 16-35 are pending in the applicant.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Numeral 34 points to components of different and separate structures in figure 4.
Note that a lack of a drawing / figure that illustrates how descender 44 shown in figs. 6a, 6b, 6c is used in conjunction with the device of figures 1-5 results in lack of understanding of the overall invention.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least two rollers”, “two outer portions of the rope drum” (claim 18), “side walls” (claim 19), “lanyard” (claims 32 and 33) note: that none of the configurations recited in claim 33 for the lanyard are illustrated either and “a centrifugal brake” (claim 27), “load-dependent braking mechanism” (claim 30) and “a wind turbine, from a building, from a lifting platform, from a crane, and from a high-bay warehouse” (claim 35) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 16-35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 appears to be missing article “A” to precede the preamble limitation: “Device”. The same issue applies to claim 27 with article “An” to precede “Assembly”.
Claim 17 line 4 recites “a respective support disc”; examiner recommends reciting “of the two circular support discs” after this limitation.
Claim 21 recites “a closable opening” is it the same opening in claim 16 line 6 from which claim 21 depends?
Claim 27 includes all the limitations of claim 16, therefore the re-establishing of the limitations: “descender”, “device” and “rope” are objected to.
The limitation “the lanyard” in claim 33 lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant is expected to correct those and find all issues similar to those and correct them as well.
How descender 44 shown in figs. 6a, 6b, 6c is used in conjunction with the device of figures 1-5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “rollers”.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 16-35 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a dimensionally stable rope bag”; indefiniteness arises because while applicant is allowed to be his own lexicographer, the definition in the specification on page 4 lines 11-18; reproduced below raises clarity issues, (a) the apparent contradiction of “retains its shape even in the unfilled state and does not collapse due to the own weight”, “does not mean that the rope bag is completely inflexible - i.e. rigid in shape” and “the rope bag is not designed as a plastic bag, bag made of a plastic film and/or polybag” while not providing an example material for the bag, but only what it is “not”, and (b) the several use of terms such as “preferably” makes it such that the actual definition of the bag is unclear whether or not it includes said preferable features. As a result, the claim does not particularly point out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
224
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 18 recites “the rope bag comprises at least two rollers such that two outer portions of the rope drum are mounted on the rollers”; in light of, and in addition to the lack of illustration of such “rollers”, and the complete lack of description or mention of said rollers in the specification, claim 18 is indefinite as to what is being claimed and how or what the design/structure of said “rollers” and “outer portions of the rope drum” may be.
Claim 29 recites “the descender is free of a transmission and/or wherein the descender unwinds at least one of unattended and automatically”; it is not understood what is meant by the language in this claim; hence rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 35 is deemed indefinite since attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; as detailed in MPEP section 2173.05(g). Note that the limitation of “abseiling” is recited only in intended use form, where the use of the assembly is “for” abseiling and not positively reciting it as that the method step comprises the steps of: ....
Dependent claims are rejected as part of the overall invention and/or for at least depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
As best understood, claims 16-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gross, US (2016/0236017).
In regards to claim 1 Gross discloses:
Device (device in fig. 7A) for storing a rope (intended use; rope 4) for a descender (intended use; as suggested in paragraph [0087]; “In some embodiments a centrifugal brake mechanism is mounted inside the cable reel”), wherein the device comprises the rope (4), a rope drum (5) and a dimensionally stable rope bag (75; note that the backpack 75 of Gross is of the type that does not collapse under its own weight as shown in fig. 7A where it retains its shape despite not being completely filled i.e. empty area surrounding drum 5; fig. 7A), wherein: the rope has a diameter of less than or equal to 8 mm (as described in paragraph [0103]; “The cable may be made from a fireproof material, such as a metal, for example, steel or synthetic material, and its length may be about 25-500 meters (m) and have a diameter of about 1 to about 4 millimeters (mm)”) and is at least partially wound onto the rope drum (as shown in fig. 3B) such that a first end of the rope can be unwound from the rope drum (as described in paragraph [0018]; “the spooled cable is controllably released from the drum device, thereby providing for safe descent of the rescuee to the ground”), and the rope drum is disposed in the rope bag (as shown drum in phantom in bag 75; fig. 7A) in such a way that the first end of the rope can be led out of an opening of the rope bag (slit 75s as described in paragraph [0103]; “cable slit 75s provided in an upper region of the backpack 75 can be used for releasing a cable 4”).
In regards to claim 17 Gross discloses the rope drum comprises a cylindrical rope pulley (reel 5d), an axle (pointed to as rotational axis 5a) pushed through the rope pulley and two circular support discs (see annotated drawings below), wherein the rope pulley is rotatably mounted about the axle (per normal operation of a reel), the axle is connected at both ends to a respective support disc (see annotated drawings below), and the diameter of the support discs is larger than the diameter of the rope pulley completely wound up with the rope (as shown in fig. 3B; reproduced below).
PNG
media_image2.png
530
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 19 Gross discloses the rope drum is mounted between side walls of the rope bag (between walls of bag 75; fig. 7A).
In regards to claim 20 Gross discloses a storage bag, wherein the rope drum is disposed in the storage bag and/or comprising a padding, wherein the padding is disposed between the rope drum and at least one of a side wall of the rope bag and the storage bag (as best understood pad 72 between 5 and bag 75).
In regards to claim 21 Gross discloses the rope bag has a shape corresponding to the rope drum (curved edges of bag 75 results in the bag being cylindrical), comprises a closable opening on a circumferential surface (slit or “underside opening at the bottom side of the backpack 75” as described in paragraph [0102]).
In regards to claim 22 Gross discloses the rope bag comprises fastening means (72s) for fastening the rope bag to a user (as shown in figs. 7A & 8E).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Zachariades, US (2010/0101833).
In regards to claim 23, while Gross discloses that the rope is made of synthetic material, Gross does not disclose/specify that the rope is a hybrid rope.
Zachariades teaches a hybrid rope (paragraph [0011]).
PNG
media_image3.png
212
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a hybrid rope such as that taught by Zachariades onto the device of Gross for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide “high strength ultra high molecular weight polyethylene or aromatic polyamide as a core with a less expensive polyamide, a UV resistant polyester or a light weight polypropylene as a braided outside layer to protect the high strength core component” as motivated by Zachariades: paragraph [0011]; reproduced above.
In regards to claim 24 Zachariades teaches the rope comprises a core (aromatic polyamide as a core) and a sheath (braided outside layer) bonded (tape with continuous and coherent structure) to the core.
In regards to claim 25 Zachariades teaches core and sheath are thermally bonded (thermosetting types of polymers) with at least one adhesive thread laid spirally on the core (braided outside layer, tape with continuous and coherent structure).
In regards to claim 26 Zachariades teaches the core of the rope comprises aramid and/or wherein the sheath of the rope comprises one of polyamide or polyamide 6 (aromatic polyamide as a core).
Claims 27-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kowatsch, US (8365877).
In regards to claim 27 Gross does not disclose a descender that is separate from the drum
Kowatsch teaches the descender (10) comprises a centrifugal brake (51) designed in such a way that a rope (14) passing through the descender (as shown in fig. 1) can be slowed down in its motion (via the friction due to braking), and wherein the rope of the device is passed through the descender (as shown in fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
655
478
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the abseiling device/descender taught by Kowatsch with the device of Gross for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., provide for a secondary safety device after the point of exit of 5p in case of failure of the drum brake 5b, and to make possible to lower loads of, e.g., 30 kg to 200 kg, without the need to manually adjust the frictional force as motivated by Kowatsch Col 1, LL 55-57.
In regards to claim 28 Gross discloses a fastening device (4h; fig. 3A-B) preferably designed as a snap hook, wherein the rope is connected at the first end to the fastening device (indirectly via the rope).
In regards to claim 29 Kowatsch teaches the descender comprises a through hole for fastening the descender (20; fig. 3), wherein the descender is free of a transmission and/or wherein the descender unwinds at least one of unattended and automatically (either re-actively during a fall or can be interpreted as automatically due to a fall; “a frictional force being automatically produced” Col 1 LL 50-51; Kowatsch).
In regards to claim 30 Kowatsch teaches the descender comprises a load-dependent braking mechanism (“generates a frictional force that is a function of the weight of the load”; abstract; Kowatsch).
In regards to claim 31 Kowatsch teaches the descender is configured to slow down the motion of the rope by means of sliding friction (“the load weight results in a certain deflection or displacement of the movable part, thereby resulting in a frictional force being automatically produced that acts on the rope and makes it possible to lower the load with a controlled speed”; as described in Col 1; LL 48-52).
In regards to claim 32 Gross discloses the assembly comprises a lanyard (6) wearable at the body (fig. 4A-B).
In regards to claim 33 Gross discloses the lanyard (6) wearable at the body is configured as at least one of a rescue triangle, a climbing harness (6), a seat harness, a chest harness, a fall arrest harness (6) and a tether.
In regards to claim 34 Gross discloses the lanyard wearable at the body is connectable to the through hole (“connectable to” through hole 20 of Kowatsch) of the descender.
In regards to claim 35 Gross discloses use of the assembly according to claim 27 for at least one of: a) abseiling from at least one of a wind turbine, from a building, from a lifting platform, from a crane, and from a high-bay warehouse, and b) abseiling for abseiling distances of at least one of 3 m, 50 m, 100 m and 150 m (for multi-storied buildings such as sky-scrapers; background of the invention).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18: in view of drawings issues and/or lack of description, currently claim 18 is not rejected with a prior art reference, and cannot be indicated allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to PTO-892 form for list of cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/S.M.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights