DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 05/20/26 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-17 and 19-24 are currently pending, with claims 8 and 18 being moved up into their respective independent claims. Despite Applicant’s arguments the previous rejections are maintained as detailed below. 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 § 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.
Chaumontet in view of Rice
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17 and 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaumontet (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0313047) in view of Rice (U.S. Patent No. 119,997). Chaumontet is directed to a safety rope blocker having a rotatable body. See Abstract. Rice is directed to improvements in fire-escapes. See Abstract. Note: this is an “X” reference in the cited ISA Written Opinion.
Claim 1: Chaumontet discloses a locking/braking device [Figs. 5, 9, 10] for adjusting a safety rope (2), comprising: an at least partially hollow body (3) provided with a path for said safety rope to pass inside said body between a first seat (14), adapted to accommodate a free branch (7) of said safety rope, and a second seat (20), adapted to accommodate a loaded branch (6) of said safety rope; said body comprising a main portion (3a, 3b), a first portion (8, at 14) and a second portion (11, at 20) defining between them a concavity (at 4) and said path comprising a first length (7 at 8) extending in said first portion and comprising said first seat, and at least one second length (6 at 11) extending at least in said second portion and comprising said second seat; and said concavity configured to be crossed by said safety rope when in use [see Fig. 5], said body defining a closed section (4) with said safety rope inside said concavity. See Figs. 5, 9, 10.
Chaumontet discloses all the limitations of this claim except for a “movable insert” in the concavity of the body of the device. Rice discloses a safety rope device [Fig. 2] with an at least partially hollow body (C) provided with a path for said safety rope (A) to pass inside said body between a first seat (a), adapted to accommodate a free branch (top A) of said safety rope, and a second seat (c), adapted to accommodate a loaded branch (bottom A) of said safety rope, with a concavity (F) defined between two portions of the body comprising the respective seats, wherein there is a movable insert (D), said movable insert (17) being configured to be movably housed inside said concavity (15) and to be interposed between said safety rope and a connector (E) when in use. See Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include a movable insert in Chaumontet because this provides for simple lever-actuations of the brake/release positions that are already disclosed in Chaumontet, similarly using a compressive/pinching mechanism on the safety rope.
Claim 2: Chaumontet discloses that said concavity extends substantially along a first axis and said first portion and second portion have a development axis substantially parallel to the first axis. See Figs. 5, 9, 10.
Claim 3: Chaumontet discloses that said first portion and said second portion branch off from said main portion substantially parallel to the first axis of the concavity. See Figs. 5, 9, 10.
Claim 4: Chaumontet discloses that the body of the device has a substantially U shape in one section thereof along a plane along said development axis. See Figs. 5, 9, 10 (at 4).
Claim 5: Chaumontet discloses that said first length of the path is substantially rectilinear and wherein said at least one second length comprises at least one rectilinear sector extending at said second portion. See Fig. 5.
Claim 6: Chaumontet discloses that said first length of said path extends along a second axis, said first length and said rectilinear sector of said at least one second length of the path being coaxial or angled to each other to form an angle between 140° and 180°. See Fig. 5.
Claim 7: Chaumontet discloses that said second axis of development of said first length of the path and said first axis form an angle with each other between 60° and 120°. See Fig. 5.
Claim 9: Rice discloses that said movable insert comprises an at least partially tubular first element, said first element having a housing configured to accommodate said safety rope when in use. See Fig. 2 (“accommodate” broadly construed).
Claim 10: Rice discloses that the movable insert further comprises a second flat element adapted to be arranged to partially obstruct said closed section when in use, said second element being equipped with a hole. See Fig. 2 (curved in one plane, flat in another).
Claim 11: Rice discloses that said second flat element comprises a slot for joining said movable insert to said body. See Fig. 2 (at E).
Claim 12: Chaumontet discloses that said first portion (13) and said second portion (14) each protrude from the main portion (11) forming two protuberances branching off from the main portion (11) of the body (10) of the device so as to define said concavity (15) therebetween.
Claim 13: Chaumontet discloses that said concavity (15) is defined as a depression in a profile of the body (10) of the device.
Claim 14: Chaumontet discloses that said first length (121) extends in said first portion (13) from said first seat (12a) to a first opening (12c) which faces said concavity (15).
Claim 15: Chaumontet discloses that said at least one second length (122) extends from said second portion (14), where there is a second opening (12d) facing said concavity (15), to said main portion (11) where said second seat (12b) is arranged.
Claim 16: Chaumontet is relied upon as in claim 1 above. Chaumontet further discloses said safety rope being configured to be inserted into said device with the free branch entering said first seat and with the loaded branch exiting from said second seat, said safety rope defining a closed section (4) with said body of the blocking/braking device; a connector (5) configured to be inserted into said closed section and to be crossed by said safety rope; said system blocking/braking being configured to be movable between a free sliding position, in which the safety rope is free to slide inside the path of said device, and a blocking/braking position, in which a sliding of the safety rope along said path is prevented or braked [see para. 0032-36]; the switching between said free sliding position and said blocking/braking position being determined by a relative rotation between the device and the connector. See Figs. 4-5; para. 0032-36.
Rice discloses a movable insert (D), said movable insert being configured to be movably housed inside said concavity and to be interposed between said safety rope and said connector when in use, wherein the connector acts indirectly, by contacting said movable insert, on said safety rope when the system is in the blocking/braking position. See Fig. 2 (via A).
Claim 17: Chaumontet discloses that the connector is in contact with the body of the device when the system is in said free sliding position and wherein the connector contacts said safety rope when the system is in said blocking/breaking position. See Figs. 4-5; para. 0032-36.
Claim 19: Chaumontet discloses that the movable insert comprises a second flat element adapted to be arranged to partially obstruct said closed section, said second element being equipped with a hole when in use, wherein said connector passes through said hole. See Fig. 2.
Claim 20: Chaumontet discloses that said safety rope comprises at least one end portion folded over at least one length of the safety rope. See Figs. 4-5.
Claim 21: Chaumontet discloses that at least one said folded end portion is constrained to a length of the safety rope by sewing and/or by applying a heat-shrinking sheath or sleeve. See Figs. 4-5; para. 0032-36. Note: ‘method of making’ is not a structural limitation of the device.
Claim 22: see claims 1 and 16 above.
Claim 23: Chaumontet discloses that, prior to said inserting said safety rope, movably housing a movable insert (D) inside said concavity. See Fig. 2.
Claim 24: Chaumontet discloses that said concavity extends substantially along a development line which comprises at least one curvilinear length, or at least two rectilinear lengths angled to each other, or a combination of at least one curvilinear length and at least one rectilinear length. See Figs. 4-5, 9-10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant traverses the rejection of claim 8, specifically the 103 combination of Chaumontet and Rice, for several reasons.
First, in response to applicant's argument that Rice is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See Remarks, pages 8-9. In this case, both references are directed to safety rope devices with a mechanism for controlling rope sliding. The combination is used because of the particular mechanism employed for controlling rope sliding.
Second, Applicant contends that the Rice “connector” in claim 1 is “not a connector in the sense of the claims of the present application.” See Remarks, page 9. Applicant argues that the connector is “a carabiner – a separate, removable element that passes through the closed section…” but none of these features actually appears in the claim language. In fact, claim 1 recites “a connector” without any further limitations. Thus, any component that performs some form of ‘connecting’ could be deemed a “connector” for the purpose of disclosing claim 1.
Finally, Applicant argues that since Chaumontet does not employ a lever-actuation system it would not be obvious to combine it with the Rice reference. See Remarks, pages 10-11. In response, it is precisely this reason why a 103 rejection is required and why Chaumontet is modified – to employ a lever-actuation system as an alternative means for controlling rope sliding. If Chaumontet already employed a lever, this would constitute the “movable insert,” and a 102 rejection would be appropriate.
For the foregoing reasons, all pending claims remain rejected as detailed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights