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's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 and 19-20, in the reply filed on 3/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 13 has been amended to include at least some of the limitations of the elements associated with the safety harness system recited in the elected independent claims 1 and 19 and as such, the method cannot be practiced by another and materially different apparatus as suggested in the Restriction Requirement and therefore the basis for the restriction of Group II is now moot. This is found persuasive and the restriction requirement between Groups I-II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 1/30/2026, is hereby withdrawn.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the signal includes one or more of a location of the one or more sensors” but it is unclear if the claim means the location of the one or more sensors or a location data of the object from the one or more sensors. Based on para. 0070 of the specification and the purpose of the sensors, it seems to mean the location data of the object from the one or more sensors. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim to mean either meaning.
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 1-6, 8, 10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fife et al. (US 20170368387), hereinafter Fife.
Regarding claim 1, Fife teaches of (fig. 1) a safety harness system (abstract, self-locking lifeline system to prevent a user from falling off an elevated surface), comprising:
one or more straps configured to be operably coupled with an object (¶0020 and 0060, lanyard 104 can be attached to straps or a harness on a user 102);
one or more sensors (sensors 160, 170 175; ¶0016, multiple sensors can be used) configured to be operably coupled with the one or more straps (coupled to the lanyard 104 which is coupled with the straps on the user 102), the one or more sensors configured to detect movement of the object (¶0022-0024, sensors 160, 170, 175 detects movement of the user 102); and
one or more processors (fig. 2, processor 210) configured to be operably coupled with the one or more straps and configured to receive data from the one or more sensors associated with the movement of the object (¶0022, lanyard 104 and sensors 160, 170, 175 communicate with the processor 210 to provide real-time current length measurement information for lanyard 104);
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine that an amount of movement of the object exceeds a movement threshold (safety perimeter 105), and wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit a signal responsive to the one or more processors determining that the amount of movement of the object exceeds the movement threshold (¶0025-0026, processor implement commands to the locking mechanism 180 when the processor determines that the object is moving past a predefined safety perimeter 105).
Regarding claim 2, Fife teaches of claim 2, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to be operably coupled with a fall protection system (¶0027, processors coupled to system 100 that prevents a user from falling from an elevated surface), wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit the signal to the fall protection system responsive to determining that the amount of movement of the object exceeds the movement threshold (¶0025-0026, processor implement commands to the locking mechanism 180 in the system 100 when the processor determines that the object is moving past a predefined safety perimeter 105).
Regarding claim 3, Fife teaches of claim 2, and wherein the signal is configured to control movement of an extension member of the fall protection system to move the extension member between a first position and a second position, wherein the extension member moving between the first position and the second position changes a state of a locking component of the fall protection system between an unlocked state and a locked state (¶0025, locking mechanism 180 moves the extension member of the lanyard 104 from an unlocked first position to a locked second position).
Regarding claim 4, Fife teaches of claim 3, and wherein (fig. 1) the one or more straps are configured to be operably coupled with the fall protection system via a retractable lanyard extending between the one or more straps and the fall protection system (¶0021, lanyard is a self-retracting lanyard (SRL)), wherein the signal is configured to change the state of the locking component of the fall protection system to control an amount of travel of the retractable lanyard (¶0025, signal controls the locking mechanism 180 to change the stage of the locking component for the fall protection system to stop lanyard 104 from traveling further).
Regarding claim 5, Fife teaches of claim 1, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive a first set of data from the one or more sensors, the first set of data associated with the movement of the object within a first time range (¶0022, processor obtains real-time data from the sensors 160, 170, 175).
Regarding claim 6, Fife teaches of claim 5, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine that the amount of movement of the object exceeds the movement threshold (105) based at least in part on the first set of data received from the one or more sensors (¶0049, processor 210 determines from the first set of data received from the sensors if the movement of the object exceeds the safety movement threshold 105).
Regarding claim 8, Fife teaches of claim 1, and further comprising a memory (fig. 2, memory 220) configured to store historical data detected by the one or more sensors (¶0029-0030 and 0046-0048, can store data from the sensors for real-time processing. Stored data is past data.), wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine that the amount of movement of the object exceeds the movement threshold based at least in part on the historical data (¶0046-0048, uses the stored data to determine if the movement parameters are past the safety parameters).
Regarding claim 10, Fife teaches of claim 1, and wherein the signal includes one or more of a location of the one or more sensors or a time stamp associated with a time at which the one or more processors determined that the amount of movement of the object exceeded the movement threshold (¶00025-0026 and 0056, the signal uses data from the sensors on the location of the user and the real-time timestamp of the data to determine if the user in real-time moved past the safety parameter 105).
Regarding claim 12, Fife teaches of claim 1, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit the signal via one or more of a wired connection or a wireless connection between the one or more processors and another device (¶0032 and 0039, communication between the components, the processor, and an external device can be wired or wireless).
Regarding claim 13, Fife teaches of a method for utilizing a safety harness system (abstract, self-locking lifeline system to prevent a user from falling off an elevated surface),
the safety harness system comprising one or more straps configured to be operably coupled with an object (¶0020 and 0060, lanyard 104 can be attached to straps or a harness on a user 102) and one or more processors (fig. 2, processor 210) configured to be operably coupled with the one or more straps (coupled to the lanyard 104 which is coupled with the straps on the user 102), the method comprising:
detecting movement of the object operably coupled the with one or more straps of the safety harness system with one or more sensors operably coupled with the one or more straps (¶0022-0024, sensors 160, 170, 175 detects movement of the user wearing the straps);
determining, with the one or more processors (210), that an amount of movement of the object exceeds a movement threshold (safety perimeter 105); and transmitting a signal, with the one or more processors, responsive to determining that the amount of movement of the object exceeds the movement threshold (105), wherein the transmitting of the signal includes controlling operation of a fall protection system (system 100) based at least in part on the signal (¶0025-0026, processor implement commands to the locking mechanism 180 when the processor determines that the object is moving past a predefined safety perimeter 105).
Regarding claim 14, Fife teaches of claim 13, and further comprising controlling a locking component of the fall protection system to change a state of the locking component between an unlocked state and a locked state responsive to the transmitting of the signal (¶0025, locking mechanism 180 changes a state of the locking component between unlocked state and locked state responsive to the signal that the user is moving past a movement threshold 105).
Regarding claim 15, Fife teaches of claim 14, and wherein (fig. 1) the one or more straps of the safety harness system are configured to be operably coupled with the fall protection system via a retractable lanyard extending between the one or more straps and the fall protection system (¶0021, lanyard is a self-retracting lanyard (SRL)), and further comprising changing the state of the locking component of the fall protection system based at least in part on the signal to control an amount of travel of the retractable lanyard (¶0025, signal controls the locking mechanism 180 to change the stage of the locking component for the fall protection system to stop lanyard 104 from traveling further).
Regarding claim 16, Fife teaches of claim 13, and further comprising:
receiving a first set of data associated with the movement of the object within a first time range (¶0022, processor obtains real-time data from the sensors 160, 170, 175); and
determining that the amount of movement of the object exceeds the movement threshold based at least in part on the first set of data (¶0049, processor 210 determines from the first set of data received from the sensors if the movement of the object exceeds the safety movement threshold 105).
Regarding claim 18, Fife teaches of claim 13, and further comprising one or more of wirelessly transmitting the signal or transmitting the signal via a wired connection (¶0032 and 0039, communication between the components, the processor, and an external device can be wired or wireless).
Regarding claim 19, Fife teaches of a safety harness system (abstract, self-locking lifeline system to prevent a user from falling off an elevated surface), comprising:
one or more straps configured to be operably coupled with an object (¶0020 and 0060, lanyard 104 can be attached to straps or a harness on a user 102), the one or more straps configured to be operably coupled with a fall protection system (coupled to the self-locking lifeline system 100);
one or more sensors (sensors 160, 170 175; ¶0016, multiple sensors can be used) configured to be operably coupled with the one or more straps (coupled to the lanyard 104 which is coupled with the straps on the user 102), the one or more sensors configured to detect movement of the object (¶0022-0024, sensors 160, 170, 175 detects movement of the user 102); and
one or more processors (fig. 2, processor 210) configured to be operably coupled with the one or more straps, the one or more processors configured to receive data from the one or more sensors associated with the detected movement of the object (¶0022, lanyard 104 and sensors 160, 170, 175 communicate with the processor 210 to provide real-time current length measurement information for lanyard 104), the one or more processors configured to be electrically coupled with the fall protection system (¶0041, processor 210 and the while system 100 can be electrically powered such that they are electrically coupled together),
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine that an amount of movement of the object exceeds a movement threshold (safety perimeter 105), and wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit a signal to the fall protection system responsive to determining that the amount of movement of the object exceeds the movement threshold (¶0025-0026, processor implement commands to the locking mechanism 180 when the processor determines that the object is moving past a predefined safety perimeter 105), wherein the signal is configured to change a state of a locking component of the fall protection system between an unlocked state and a locked state (¶0025, locking mechanism 180 moves the locking component from an unlocked state to a locked state).
Regarding claim 20, Fife teaches of claim 19, and wherein the one or more straps are configured to be operably coupled with the fall protection system via a retractable lanyard extending between the one or more straps and the fall protection system (¶0021, lanyard is a self-retracting lanyard (SRL)), wherein the signal is configured to change the state of the locking component of the fall protection system to control an amount of travel of the retractable lanyard (¶0025, signal controls the locking mechanism 180 of the fall protection system 100 to change the stage of the locking component for the fall protection system 100 to stop lanyard 104 from traveling further).
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 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fife et al. (US 20170368387), hereinafter Fife, in view of Awiszus et al. (US 20170374436), hereinafter Awiszus.
Regarding claim 7, Fife teaches of claim 5, but does not appear to teach of wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive a second set of data from the one or more sensors, the second set of data associated with the movement of the object within a second time range, wherein the one or more processors are configured to compare the first set of data with the second set of data, and the one or more processors are configured to determine that the amount of movement of the object exceeds the movement threshold based at least in part on the comparison between the first set of data and the second set of data.
Awiszus teaches of wherein (fig. 2) the one or more processors are configured to receive a second set of data from the one or more sensors (¶0058, historical data and models 74B has multiple historical data sets from multiple streams of event data 74A), the second set of data associated with the movement of the object within a second time range (different stored historical data has different time range), wherein the one or more processors are configured to compare the first set of data with the second set of data (¶0058-0062, compare and analyzes many streams of events and data sets, including a first and second set of data), and the one or more processors are configured to determine that the amount of movement of the object exceeds the movement threshold based at least in part on the comparison between the first set of data and the second set of data (¶0058-0062, compares and analyzes data sets to determine if the worker is moving in a way that is against safety rules and thresholds).
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 Fife to incorporate the teachings of Awiszus of wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive a second set of data from the one or more sensors, the second set of data associated with the movement of the object within a second time range, wherein the one or more processors are configured to compare the first set of data with the second set of data, and the one or more processors are configured to determine that the amount of movement of the object exceeds the movement threshold based at least in part on the comparison between the first set of data and the second set of data in order to compare and analyze multiple data sets to have a more robust analysis of the movement of the worker and analyze and predict if the user are following safety thresholds as motivated by Awiszus in paras. 0057-0062.
Regarding claim 11, Fife teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine that the amount of movement of the object within a determined time range exceeds a movement rate threshold.
Awiszus teaches of wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine that the amount of movement of the object within a determined time range exceeds a movement rate threshold (¶0169-0171, processor gets acceleration data 160 and speed 162 of a lifeline and determines if the user is unsafe by determining if the data exceeds a movement rate threshold).
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 Fife to incorporate the teachings of Awiszus of wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine that the amount of movement of the object within a determined time range exceeds a movement rate threshold in order to determine unsafe behavior and unsafe events, such as a fall, as motivated by Awiszus in para. 0017 and 0096.
Regarding claim 17, Fife teaches of claim 16, but does not appear to teach of further comprising:
receiving a second set of data associated with the movement of the object within a second time range;
comparing the first set of data with the second set of data; and
determining that the amount of movement of the object exceeds the movement threshold based at least in part on the comparison between the first set of data and the second set of data.
Awiszus teaches of receiving a second set of data associated with the movement of the object within a second time range (¶0058, historical data and models 74B has multiple historical data sets from multiple streams of event data 74A; different stored historical data has different time range);
comparing the first set of data with the second set of data (¶0058-0062, compare and analyzes many streams of events and data sets, including a first and second set of data); and
determining that the amount of movement of the object exceeds the movement threshold based at least in part on the comparison between the first set of data and the second set of data (¶0058-0062, compares and analyzes to determine if the worker is moving in a way that is against safety rules and thresholds).
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 Fife to incorporate the teachings of Awiszus of further comprising: receiving a second set of data associated with the movement of the object within a second time range; comparing the first set of data with the second set of data; and determining that the amount of movement of the object exceeds the movement threshold based at least in part on the comparison between the first set of data and the second set of data in order to compare and analyze multiple data sets to have a more robust analysis of the movement of the worker and analyze and predict if the user are following safety thresholds as motivated by Awiszus in paras. 0057-0062.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fife et al. (US 20170368387), hereinafter Fife, in view of Thompson (US 20190160310).
Regarding claim 9, Fife teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit the signal to an emergency system.
Thompson teaches of wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit the signal to an emergency system (fig. 19, ¶0142, electronic device may notify emergency services in response to a fall detection signal).
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 Fife to incorporate the teachings of Thompson of wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit the signal to an emergency system in order to notify emergency personnel to initiate a rescue response as motivated by Thompson in paras. 0142-0143.
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
Prosecution Insights