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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/08/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 and 27 has been amended. Claims 1, and 16-29 remains pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Moreover, new limitations have been added to independent claim-1, therefore a new interpretation Ronald in view of NPL has been used and the arguments are moot.
Applicant argues about new limitation added to claim-1 that Ronald does not teach “wherein each of the at least two attachment devices comprise a leg or a tab configured to plastically deform during a fall of a person wearing the personal protective equipment connected to the at least two attachment devices in order to absorb at least some of the force of the fall”.
In response Ronald in combination with NPL teaches new limitations. These attachment devices can be used to attach PPE as shown in Figures. Moreover, Ronald does teach that wherein each at least one attachment devices (40) comprise a leg or a tab (u-shaped Crosby clip 38) configured to bend during a fall of a person wearing personal protective equipment connected to the at least one attachment device in order to absorb at least some of the force of the fall. It is obvious and well-known in the art that Crosby clip is of multiple types i.e., G-450 Wire Rope Clip or SS-450 Stainless Steel Clips and can be selected based on required specification of an apparatus. These clips are usually made of strong material having enough ductility, and strength to ensure strong and safe connection in lifting and rigging applications to absorb force. Or alternatively provide attachment device (40) with Rubber Cushioned U Bracket Clamp which are well known and are available over the shelf, as disclosed in NPL such clamps can plastically deform to absorb force during fall.
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) 1, and 16-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronald (US 20200095786) in view of NPL (Rubber Cushioned U Bracket Clamp).
Regarding claim-1, Ronald discloses a support structure of an escalator or a moving walkway (Fig.1-4, Abstract), the support structure comprising:
wherein at least two attachment devices (plurality of 40, Fig.3-4) are configured for connecting personal protective equipment (suitable therefor) are arranged along central region (Fig.2-4) of the support structure (Fig.1-4) (It is obvious that plurality of attachment devices can be used to attach PPE as shown in Figures),
wherein the at least two attachment devices (40) and are welded, soldered or riveted (implicitly) to the support structure (i.e., 54a of escalator structure), wherein the at least two attachment devices (40) are spaced apart from one another at most by a safety distance (40 are spaced apart See Fig.2-3), the safety distance selected to be less than an average arm span of a human (It is obvious from Figures1-3 that plurality of attachment devices along the support structure are spaced apart from one another at most by a safety distance, the safety distance to be less than an average arm span of a human). It would have been obvious to the skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use attachment device to hook and unhook PPE while installing/assembling escalators (See Fig.2-4). Moreover, it would be obvious that attachment devices are firmly attached to support structure of escalator via well-known method in the art i.e., welding, soldering, adhesive techniques, mechanical fastening techniques etc. (See Fig.2-4), and
wherein each of the at least two attachment devices (40) comprise a leg or a tab (u-shaped Crosby Clip 38) configured to plastically deform during a fall of a person wearing the personal protective equipment connected to the at least two attachment devices in order to absorb at least some of the force of the fall. It is obvious and well-known in the art that Crosby clip is of multiple types i.e., G-450 Wire Rope Clip or SS-450 Stainless Steel Clips and can be selected based on required specification of an apparatus. These clips are usually made of strong material having enough ductility, and strength to ensure strong and safe connection in lifting and rigging applications.
NPL discloses Rubber and Still Cushioned U Bracket Clamp used to secure cables.
There it would have been obvious to the skilled person in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to alternatively provide Ronald with rubber and steel Cushioned U Bracket Clamp as disclosed in NPL such clamps can secure harnesses and plastically deform since it is made of rubber and steel so that it can absorb force during fall.
Regarding claim-16, Ronald does not explicitly disclose wherein the attachment devices (40) are color-coded. However, it is just a mere of design and constructional detail of an apparatus in which skilled person in the art can easily provide colored attachment device to distinguish from rest of the escalator structure according to desired specification of an apparatus without involving any inventive step. Moreover, it would be helpful for an installing personnel to identify for quick and easy hooking and unhooking of PPE.
Regarding claim-17, Ronald discloses wherein the attachment devices (40) are arranged on opposite sides of the support structure (Fig.1C).
Regarding claim-18, Ronald does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one color-coded anchor device (hooking bracket 38) fixedly connected to the support structure for an attachment device (40) for the personal protective equipment is arranged on at least one end region of the support structure (Fig.2-4), wherein the anchor device (38) is spaced from an adjacent attachment device at most by the safety distance (Fig.2-4) (as explained in claim-16).
Regarding claim-19, Ronald discloses wherein in the end region, at least two anchor devices (38 with 40) are arranged on opposite sides of the support structure (Fig.1C).
Regarding claim-20-22, Ronald does not disclose wherein the anchor device (38) has a thread for an attachment device configured as a screw eyelet; wherein the anchor device (38) has a hole for an attachment device configured as a pawl anchor; wherein the anchor device (38) is arranged on an underside of an upper chord (54a) of the support structure. It is just a mere of design and constructional detail of an apparatus in which skilled person in the art can easily substitute with hooking bracket with anchor latch pawl kit or anchor latch with screw eyelet which are well known in the art without involving inventive step.
Regarding claim-23, Ronald discloses wherein at least one of the attachment devices (40) or the anchor devices (38) is arranged in pairs opposite one another (Fig.1C, 2-4).
Regarding claim-24, Ronald discloses wherein the at least one anchor device (38) is welded to the support structure (as explained in claim-1).
Regarding claim-25, Ronald discloses wherein the support structure comprises upper chords (54a, Fig.4) and lower chords (54b, Fig.4), and wherein the attachment devices or anchor devices (38 with 40) are arranged on at least one of the upper chords (54a) of the support structure (Fig.4).
Regarding claim-26, Ronald discloses wherein the attachment devices (40 with 38) are oriented toward an interior space of the support structure (Fig.4).
Regarding claim-27, Ronald discloses wherein the attachment devices (40 and 38) are cut from a sheet material, and each has a stiffening region for locally stiffening the support structure and a tab having an eyelet (Crosby clip) (Fig.2-4).
Regarding claim-28, Ronald discloses wherein the attachment devices (40 and 38) are cut and bent, wherein the tab is oriented at an angle to the stiffening region. It is just a mere of design and constructional detail of an apparatus in which skilled person in the art can easily orient attachment device according to desired specification of an apparatus without involving any inventive step.
Regarding claim-29, Ronald discloses wherein at least one attachment device (40 and 38) spaced from an adjacent attachment device at most by the safety distance and fixedly connected to the support structure is arranged on at least one of the end regions (fig.2-4).
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 MUHAMMAD AWAIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4955. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4 pm (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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571)272-6911. 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.
/MA/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights