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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 15-17, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thompson et al. (US 20240318464), hereinafter Thompson.
Regarding claim 1, Thompson teaches of (fig. 3) a fall-protection device for use with a safety harness of a user (abstract, fall-protection interlocking system for use with a safety harness of a user), the fall-protection device comprising:
a housing (housing 51) configured to be connected to the safety harness (¶0009, connector 30 connects housing 51 to a safety harness 40);
a lifeline (lifeline 52) extending from the housing (seen in fig. 3), the lifeline comprising a lifeline end distal to the housing (distal end of lifeline 52) and configured to be coupled to an anchor (fig. 1, support structure has an anchor configured to connect to anchorage 6 of the fall-protection apparatus 50 or connector 30 by the distal end of lifeline 52), wherein the lifeline is retractable or extendable relative to the housing (¶0046, lifeline 52 is self-retracting and extendable relative to the housing 51), and wherein the lifeline (52) is extendable relative to the housing from a retracted state in which a length of the lifeline extending out of the housing is minimum (¶0046, lifeline 52 extends from housing 51 from a retracted state in which the length of the lifeline 52 is at a minimum); and
a flexible cover (¶0046, energy absorber 35 can be a flexible cover that expands and “unzip”) extending from the housing (51) (seen in fig. 3) and coupled to the housing (51) and the lifeline (52) (seen in fig. 3), the
flexible cover at least partially enclosing the lifeline (seen in fig. 3), wherein the flexible cover contracts or expands as the lifeline retracts or extends, respectively, relative to the housing (¶0046, Some such SRLs may feature a safety line 52 that is equipped with an energy absorber 35 (as denoted in FIG. 3) in the form of a so-called tear-strip or shock-pack. Such energy absorbers often rely on several segments of safety line, e.g. webbing, that are accordion-folded together and sewn to each other so that they can “unzip” from each other in a manner that absorbs energy in the case of a fall.).
Regarding claim 4, Thompson teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 3) further comprising a connector (connector 30) coupled to the lifeline end (distal end of lifeline 52), wherein the connector (30) is configured to detachably couple the lifeline to the anchor (connector can detachably couple to the anchor on support structure 5).
Regarding claim 5, Thompson teaches of claim 4, and (fig. 3) wherein the lifeline (52) further comprises a loop at the lifeline end (loop below energy absorber 35), and wherein the loop is connected to the connector (30) (seen in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Thompson teaches of claim 5, and wherein the loop is disposed outside the flexible cover (fig. 3, loop is outside the flexible cover 35).
Regarding claim 7, Thompson teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 3) further comprising a drum (drum 53) received within the housing (51) and rotatable relative to the housing (¶0046, drum 53 is rotatably connected to housing 51), wherein the lifeline (52) is at least partially wound around the drum (¶0046, lifeline 52 is wounded around drum 53), and wherein the lifeline (52) winds on or unwinds from the drum as the lifeline retracts or extends, respectively, relative to the housing (51) (¶0046, lifeline 52 winds and unwinds around the drum 53 as it retracts and expands relative to the housing 51).
Regarding claim 15, Thompson teaches of claim 1, and wherein (fig. 3) the flexible cover (35) is expandable from a contracted state in which the lifeline is in the retracted state (¶0046, energy absorbers can expand from a contracted state when the lifeline is in a retracted state), and wherein a length of the flexible cover (35) is minimum in the contracted state (seen in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Thompson teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 3) wherein the flexible cover (35) has a minimum length corresponding to the retracted state of the lifeline (seen in fig. 3), such that the flexible cover (35) restricts further retraction of the lifeline (52) into the housing (51) from the retracted state (¶0047, energy absorbers have several segments of safety line, e.g. webbing, that are accordion-folded together and sewn to each other such that it would be restricted from further retraction of the lifeline into the housing).
Regarding claim, 17, Thompson teaches of claim 1, and wherein the flexible cover is fully disposed outside the housing (fig. 3, flexible cover 35 is fully disposed outside the housing 51).
Regarding claim 21, Thompson teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 3) wherein the flexible cover (35) is configured to dampen a movement of the lifeline as the lifeline retracts relative to the housing (¶0046, energy absorbers dampen the movement by absorbing energy. Examiner notes that by having more material and components on the lifeline, the extra material and components would dampen movement due to air drag, absorbing vibrations on the device, and weight).
Regarding claim 23, Thompson teaches of a fall-protection system (abstract, fall-protection interlocking system) comprising:
a safety harness (fig. 4, safety harness 40) configured to be worn by a user (seen in fig. 4);
an anchor (fig. 1, anchor of support structure 5 where the fall protection apparatus 50 is attached); and
the fall-protection device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the lifeline (52) is connected to the anchor (seen in fig. 1), and
wherein the housing (51) is connected to the safety harness (¶0009, connector 30 connects the housing 51 to the safety harness 40).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Weinig et al. (US 20160144530), hereinafter Weinig.
Regarding claim 2, Thompson teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the flexible cover comprises:
a first end fixedly coupled to the housing, and
a second end distal to the first end and fixedly coupled to the lifeline proximal to the lifeline end.
Weinig teaches of (fig. 21) wherein the flexible cover (figs. 21-22, sheath 63 contracts and expands) comprises:
a first end (second end section 69) fixedly coupled to the housing (¶0073, figs. 1 and 19, first end section 69 is secured to fastening means 13, which is fixedly coupled to housing 4), and
a second end (first end section 68) distal to the first end (69) and fixedly coupled to the cable (spring element 73) proximal to the cable end (end of spring element 73 by second end section 68) (¶0073, figs. 1 and 19, second end section 68 is secured to connecting device 17, which is connected to carabiner 19 and where the carabiner 19 is further attached to the user).
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 Thompson to incorporate the teachings of Weing of replacing the flexible cover with wherein the flexible cover comprises: a first end fixedly coupled to the housing, and a second end distal to the first end and fixedly coupled to the lifeline proximal to the lifeline end in order to cover the entire length of the lifeline in the retracted and expanded state.
Regarding claim 3, Thompson teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the flexible cover comprises bellows.
Weinig teaches of wherein the flexible cover comprises bellows (fig. 21, the folds of the sheath 63 are bellows).
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 Thompson to incorporate the teachings of Weinig of wherein the flexible cover comprises bellows in order to compress by folding and expand by unfolding as motivated by Weinig in para. 0073 and the folds helps dissipate the forces on the device by having more surface area and material absorbing the energy.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Boraas (US 20200030644).
Regarding claim 18, Thompson teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of further comprising a lifeline stop coupled to and disposed around the lifeline, wherein the lifeline stop is received within the flexible cover, and wherein the lifeline stop engages with the housing in the retracted state of the lifeline, such that the lifeline is restricted from further retraction into the housing.
Boraas teaches of (fig. 4) further comprising a lifeline stop (sleeve assembly 80 can be used to stop the cable 20 from retracting further) coupled to and disposed around the lifeline (cable 20) (seen in fig. 4), wherein the lifeline stop (80) is received within the cover (figs. 5-6, ¶0024, sleeve assembly 80 can be positioned within through-passage 69), and wherein the lifeline stop engages with the housing in the retracted state of the lifeline, such that the lifeline is restricted from further retraction into the housing (¶0021, the sleeve assembly 80 along with shroud 60 serves as a “bumper” to prevent cable 20 from entering a housing in the event that cable 20 is retracted into the housing).
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 Thompson to incorporate the teachings of Boraas of further comprising a lifeline stop coupled to and disposed around the lifeline, wherein the lifeline stop is received within the flexible cover, and wherein the lifeline stop engages with the housing in the retracted state of the lifeline, such that the lifeline is restricted from further retraction into the housing in order to prevent the cable from fully retracting into the housing and making it difficult to hold and extend the cable outside the housing.
Regarding claim 19, Thompson as modified teaches of claim 18, and (fig. 3) wherein the housing (51) comprises a housing opening (bottom opening for lifeline 52), wherein the lifeline extends through the housing opening (seen in fig. 3), and wherein the housing opening has maximum width smaller than a maximum width of the lifeline stop (as modified by Boraas, the lifeline stop servers as a “bumper” to the housing in which the housing opening has a maximum width smaller than a maximum width of the lifeline stop).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pp. 9-14, filed 6/23/2026, with respect to claims 8-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 8-14 and 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Thompson does not disclose of an arrangement of "a housing configured to be connected to the safety harness of a user" and "a lifeline extending from the housing ... configured to be coupled to an anchor," with the lifeline including a distal end relative to the housing” because Thompson teaches of the opposite configuration in which the housing is associated with the anchorage, while the distal end of the lifeline is associated with the safety harness. The Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The claim merely claims that the housing is configured to be connected to the safety harness and the lifeline is configured to be coupled to an anchor. The housing is able to be connected to the safety harness by attaching the anchorage 6 to a safety harness instead of to a support structure such as attaching the connector on the harness to the anchorage 6. The arrangement described in the specification of Thompson does not teaches away from the “configured to” language in the claims. The structure is able to perform the limitations in the claim and thus, read upon the claims. Additionally, connection includes indirect connection in which when the housing is arranged as seen in fig. 1 of Thompson and the harness is connected at connector 30, the housing 51 is indirectly connected to the safety harness through connection of safety line 52 and connector 30. Similarly, the lifeline 52 is able to be connected to an anchor on a support structure by attaching the connector 30 to the anchor instead of a harness. Similarly, the lifelines 52 is indirectly connected or coupled to an anchor by connection of housing 51 to the anchor.
Applicant argues that Thompson does not teach of a flexible cover extending from the housing, coupled to the housing and the lifeline, at least partially enclosing the lifeline, and contracting or expanding as the lifeline retracts or extends relative to the housing during normal operation relative to the housing because the tear-strip or shock-pack are folded webbing segments sewn together so that they can “unzip” in a fall event to absorb energy. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim does not claim that the flexible cover is required to be operative during normal operation and can be broadly interpreted that the flexible cover can expand during any use of the device. During the fall event, the energy absorber expands and unzip as the lifeline is extended during the fall.
Applicant argues that with respect to claim 2, Weining does not cure the deficiencies of Thompson and cannot be used for an obviousness analysis because Thompson does not teach of claim 1 due to the Applicant’s arguments about claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees and cites the discussion above.
Applicant argues that with respect to claim 3, Weining does not teach remedy the deficiencies of Thomspon as to claim 1 and it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thompson’s disclosed apparatus because Thomspon does not teach of the specific cover structure recited in claim 1 and Thompson’s cited energy absorber 35 is described as a tear-strip or shock-pack for absorbing energy during a fall event, not as a bellows-type cover the contracts and expands with ordinary lifeline retraction and extension. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner cites to the discussion above about Thompson teaching claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that it would not be obvious to modify Thompson’s energy absorber to have the bellows of Weining due to different structure, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The claim merely recites the that cover has bellows. Weining teaches of bellows on a flexible cover and it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that bellows absorb movement by folding and expanding, as cited by Weining, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would apply the teaching to the energy absorber of Thompson.
In response to applicant's argument that Boros does not remedy Thompson’s failure to disclose the claimed flexible cover arrangement in claim 1 and the rationale cited in the Office Action is a general statement of benefit and is not specific and adequate to explain why one of ordinary skill would have modified Thompson’s distinct system architecture in the particular manner required by claim 18, and claim 19 has the same footing, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Examiner addressed Applicant’s arguments to Thomspon to claim 1 above. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, a rationale for one of obvious skill in the art does not have to be specific to the primary reference and a general statement of benefit can be used to explain why one of ordinary skill in the arts would modify the primary reference.
Conclusion
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