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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the line quality is not black and well defined. There is also text in the figures that is not legible. All line quality must be clear, well defined, and text must be readable. Further, the drawings contain black and white photographs. Black and white photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. If they are, they must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. In the instant application, the photographs are not reproducible in a clear, well-defined manner. 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 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 7, line 1 reads “A safety harness comprising for an operator of an associated machine”. The claim would read better as follows: “A safety harness for an operator of an associated machine comprising:”. Appropriate correction is required.
In regard to claim 7, line 5, “detects” should be “detect”. Appropriate correction is required.
In regard to claim 8, line 1 states that claim 8 is dependent upon claim 6. However, this is believed to be a typographical error because claim 8 contains the exact same limitations a claim 6. Also, claim 7 is independent and claim 8 is after claim 7. Therefore, it is believed that claim 8 was intended to depend from claim 7. This is how the claim will be examined until further clarification is provided.
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 1-8 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.
In regard to claims 1 and 7, the claims appear to positively claim the operator, i.e. a person. It is improper to claim a person in a patent claim. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear. The claim should claim “the bladder is configured to be positioned between the operator and the safety harness”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Contigiani (WO 2015/019379) in view of Baillargeon et al. (6330931).
In regard to claim 7, Contigiani discloses a safety harness capable of being used for an operator of an associated machine comprising: an air bladder 12, 14 attached to the safety harness such that the bladder is positioned between the operator and the safety harness (figures 1, 2, and 6); a back support 2; and a buckle, i.e. lanyard shown in figure 1. Contigiani does not disclose that the buckle contains a switch to detect when the buckle is fastened, the buckle switch is connected to a latching relay device, the latching relay having an output to a machine interlock connected to an associated machine; whereby the activation of the switch determines whether the buckle is fastened and the safety harness is being worn to switch the machine interlock when the operator is safely fastened into the harness. Baillargeon teaches the use of a lanyard that serves as a buckle, i.e. the many lanyards taught by Baillargeon having clips or “buckles” at the ends to attach to the D-rings. Therefore, as broadly interpreted, Baillargeon teaches buckles. Baillargeon teaches that the buckle switch is connected to a latching relay device, the latching relay having an output to a machine interlock connected to an associated machine; whereby the activation of the switch determines whether the buckle is fastened and the safety harness is being worn to switch the machine interlock when the operator is safely fastened into the harness (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Baillargeon’s teaching into Contigiani’s invention, because by having a switch to make sure the operator is properly secured to the machine will prevent avoidable injuries.
In regard to claim 8, Contigiani in view of Baillargeon disclose the basic claimed invention, further including an alarm (abstract Baillargeon) configured to be sounded if the operator removes the safety harness while an associated machine is in operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the prior art references of record teach the use of safety harness with inflatable air bladders, machine interlocks, sensors, and comparator circuits, they do not show or teach the use of an inflatable air bladder configured to be positioned between the operator and the harness, wherein the air bladder acts as a pressure switch to determine if the safety harness is being properly worn by the user. The examiner has no proper motivation to modify the references of record to produce applicant’s claimed invention without relying on hindsight.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633