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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
The Applicants’ claim for priority based upon U.S. Provisional Application 63/232,962 filed on August 13, 2021 is duly noted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 20, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “low-power-consumption latch module” in claims 1, 4-8, 12-15, and 20 as well as “sensor module” in claim 17, “entry gate sensor module” in claim 18, and “user authorization module” in claim 19. Support for the terms are found in paragraph 0009 where the “low-power-consumption latch module” is an electronic device in communication with a monitoring system, paragraph 0060 where a “sensor module” is an electronic device used for sensing whether the connector appears to be connected to the safety harness, paragraph 0031 where the “entry gate sensor module” is an electronic device that sends a signal to the latch module and/or to a base unit of the fall-protection monitoring system, and paragraph 0032 where a “user authorization module” is an electronic device used for confirming that a person who seeks to enter the access-controlled area is authorized to enter the area.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 12-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baillargeon et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0217091] in view of Park [Korean Patent Application KR1020100011178]
With regard to claim 1, Baillargeon et al. meets the limitations of:
a fall-protection interlocking system for an access-controlled fall-risk area comprising an entry gate, the system comprising a normally-latched, low-power-consumption latch module that is installed at the entry gate [a detector switch having a latch for connecting a tether that is electrically connected to a controller (paragraph 0075) where the latch acts as a detector for detecting the connection of a tether (paragraph 0076)]
a fall-protection apparatus that is installed at the access-controlled area and that comprises a safety line with a distal end comprising a connector configured to be connected to a safety harness worn by a user of the access-controlled area [a safety lanyard connected to a body harness when the operator is in an aerial work lift platform/basket (paragraph 0066)]
wherein the fall-protection apparatus is positioned and configured so that the distal end of the safety line is graspable by the user when the user is located outwardly-proximate to the entry gate [a tether attached to an operator that is of a certain length where the tether is within grasp of the operator and attached to a safety latch that is facing the entry point for a basket (paragraph 0066 and figure 3, items 158 and 162)]
wherein the fall-protection monitoring system is configured to send a positive signal to the low-power-consumption latch module when the fall-protection monitoring system determines that the connector of the safety line appears to be connected to the safety harness of the user [a detector switch having a latch for connecting a tether that is electrically connected to a controller (paragraph 0075) where the latch acts as a detector for detecting the connection of a tether of an operator (paragraph 0076)]
a fall-protection monitoring system that is in communication with the low-power- consumption latch module and that is configured to determine whether the connector of the safety line appears to be connected to the safety harness of the user [a detector switch having a latch for connecting a tether that is electrically connected to a controller (paragraph 0075) where the latch acts as a detector for detecting the connection of a tether of an operator (paragraph 0076) which prevents the movement of the platform/basket from moving if the connection to the tether is not detected (paragraph 0006)]
However, Baillargeon et al. fails to disclose of wherein the low-power-consumption latch is configured to unlatch the entry gate upon receiving the positive signal from the fall-protection monitoring system. In the field of latch devices, Park teaches:
the low-power-consumption latch is configured to unlatch the entry gate upon receiving the positive signal from the fall-protection monitoring system [a control unit monitors whether a feeding detection signal is input through the feeding detection means, and blocks the unlocking of the digital door lock when the feeding detection signal is input through the feeding detection means when the entry detection signal of the worker is input from the access detection means (page 2, paragraph 9)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Baillargeon et al. and Park to create a safety tethering system where the system permits the operation of a basket/platform and use of an entry door to said basket/platform when the system detects the attachment of an operator’s tether to a latch in the basket/platform in order to prevent the operator from operating the basket/platform without being safely attached to the tether for his/her own safety wherein the motivation to combine is an active interface monitoring and warning system for fall arresting/prevention devices (Baillargeon et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 2, Baillargeon et al. meets the limitation of:
the access-controlled fall-risk area is stationary [a detector switch having a latch for connecting a tether that is electrically connected to a controller (paragraph 0075) where the latch acts as a detector for detecting the connection of a tether of an operator (paragraph 0076) which prevents the movement of the platform/basket from moving if the connection to the tether is not detected (paragraph 0006)]
With regard to claim 3, Baillargeon et al. meets the limitation of:
the access-controlled fall-risk area is movable [a detector switch having a latch for connecting a tether that is electrically connected to a controller (paragraph 0075) where the latch acts as a detector for detecting the connection of a tether of an operator (paragraph 0076) which enables the movement of the platform/basket from moving if the connection to the tether is detected (paragraph 0006)]
With regard to claim 4, Baillargeon et al. meets the limitation of:
the fall-protection interlocking system is configured so that upon receipt of the positive signal, the low-power-consumption latch module unlatches the entry gate and maintains the entry gate in an unlatched condition until the fall-protection monitoring system detects that the connector of the safety line appears to be not connected to the safety harness of the accessor, whereupon the fall-protection monitoring system sends a negative signal to the low-power-consumption latch module, and wherein upon receipt of the negative signal, the low-power-consumption latch module relatches the entry gate [a detector switch having a latch for connecting a tether that is electrically connected to a controller (paragraph 0075) where the latch acts as a detector for detecting the connection of a tether of an operator (paragraph 0076) which enables or disables the movement of the platform/basket from moving if the connection to the tether is or is not detected (paragraph 0006)]
With regard to claim 5, Baillargeon et al. meets the limitation of:
the fall-protection interlocking system is configured so that upon receipt of the positive signal [a detector switch having a latch for connecting a tether that is electrically connected to a controller (paragraph 0075) where the latch acts as a detector for detecting the connection of a tether of an operator (paragraph 0076) which enables the movement of the platform/basket from moving if the connection to the tether is detected (paragraph 0006)]
However, Baillargeon et al. fails to disclose of the low-power-consumption latch module unlatches the entry gate for a predetermined time period, after which the low-power-consumption latch module relatches the entry gate. In the field of latch devices, Park teaches:
the low-power-consumption latch module unlatches the entry gate for a predetermined time period, after which the low-power-consumption latch module relatches the entry gate [a control unit monitors whether a feeding detection signal is input through the feeding detection means, and blocks the unlocking of the digital door lock when the feeding detection signal is input through the feeding detection means when the entry detection signal of the worker is input from the access detection means (page 2, paragraph 9)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Baillargeon et al. and Park to create a safety tethering system where the system permits the operation of a basket/platform and use of an entry door to said basket/platform when the system detects the attachment of an operator’s tether to a latch in the basket/platform in order to prevent the operator from operating the basket/platform without being safely attached to the tether for his/her own safety wherein the motivation to combine is an active interface monitoring and warning system for fall arresting/prevention devices (Baillargeon et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 6, Baillargeon et al. meets the limitation of:
the system comprises at least one exit actuator that is accessible by the user from within the access-controlled area and that can be actuated by the user [a control unit monitors whether a feeding detection signal is input through the feeding detection means, and blocks the unlocking of the digital door lock when the feeding detection signal is input through the feeding detection means when the entry detection signal of the worker is input from the access detection means (page 2, paragraph 9)]
However, Baillargeon et al. fails to disclose of to send an actuation signal to the low-power-consumption latch module, and wherein upon receipt of the actuation signal the low-power-consumption latch module unlatches the entry gate. In the field of latch devices, Park teaches:
to send an actuation signal to the low-power-consumption latch module, and wherein upon receipt of the actuation signal the low-power-consumption latch module unlatches the entry gate [a control unit monitors whether a feeding detection signal is input through the feeding detection means, and blocks the unlocking of the digital door lock when the feeding detection signal is input through the feeding detection means when the entry detection signal of the worker is input from the access detection means (page 2, paragraph 9)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Baillargeon et al. and Park to create a safety tethering system where the system permits the operation of a basket/platform and use of an entry door to said basket/platform when the system detects the attachment of an operator’s tether to a latch in the basket/platform in order to prevent the operator from operating the basket/platform without being safely attached to the tether for his/her own safety wherein the motivation to combine is an active interface monitoring and warning system for fall arresting/prevention devices (Baillargeon et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 8, Baillargeon et al. meets the limitation of:
the fall-protection monitoring system comprises a base unit and comprises at least one sensor module mounted on the connector and configured to sense whether the connector appears to be connected to the safety harness and to communicate connector status information to the base unit that is indicative of whether the connector appears to be connected to the safety harness; and wherein the base unit is configured to receive the connector status information from the at least one sensor module, to
However, Baillargeon et al. fails to disclose of transmitting the positive signal to the low-power-consumption latch module if the connector status information received from the at least one sensor module indicates that the connector appears to be connected to the harness and to transmit a negative signal to the low-power-consumption latch module if the connector status information received from the at least one sensor module indicates that the connector does not appear to be connected to the harness. In the field of latch devices, Park teaches:
transmitting the positive signal to the low-power-consumption latch module if the connector status information received from the at least one sensor module indicates that the connector appears to be connected to the harness and to transmit a negative signal to the low-power-consumption latch module if the connector status information received from the at least one sensor module indicates that the connector does not appear to be connected to the harness [a control unit monitors whether a feeding detection signal is input through the feeding detection means, and blocks the unlocking of the digital door lock when the feeding detection signal is input through the feeding detection means when the entry detection signal of the worker is input from the access detection means (page 2, paragraph 9)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Baillargeon et al. and Park to create a safety tethering system where the system permits the operation of a basket/platform and use of an entry door to said basket/platform when the system detects the attachment of an operator’s tether to a latch in the basket/platform in order to prevent the operator from operating the basket/platform without being safely attached to the tether for his/her own safety wherein the motivation to combine is an active interface monitoring and warning system for fall arresting/prevention devices (Baillargeon et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 12, Baillargeon et al. fails to disclose of the low-power- consumption latch module is battery-powered and is not connected to any external power source. In the field of latch devices, Park teaches:
the low-power- consumption latch module is battery-powered and is not connected to any external power source [a battery used for supplying power (page 5, paragraphs 1-5)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Baillargeon et al. and Park to create a battery powered safety tethering system where the system permits the operation of a basket/platform and use of an entry door to said basket/platform when the system detects the attachment of an operator’s tether to a latch in the basket/platform in order to prevent the operator from operating the basket/platform without being safely attached to the tether for his/her own safety wherein the motivation to combine is an active interface monitoring and warning system for fall arresting/prevention devices (Baillargeon et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 13, Baillergeon et al. fails to disclose of the low-power-
consumption latch module comprises a latching solenoid lock. In the field of latch devices, Park teaches:
the low power consumption latch module comprises a latching solenoid lock [a control unit monitors whether a feeding detection signal is input through the feeding detection means, and blocks the unlocking of the digital door lock when the feeding detection signal is input through the feeding detection means when the entry detection signal of the worker is input from the access detection means (page 2, paragraph 9)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Baillargeon et al. and Park to create a safety tethering system where the system permits the operation of a basket/platform and use of an entry door to said basket/platform when the system detects the attachment of an operator’s tether to a latch in the basket/platform in order to prevent the operator from operating the basket/platform without being safely attached to the tether for his/her own safety wherein the motivation to combine is an active interface monitoring and warning system for fall arresting/prevention devices (Baillargeon et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 14, Baillargeon et al. meets the limitation of:
the low-power- consumption latch is installed at the entry gate by way of being retrofitted onto an existing entry gate [an interlock door latch installed at a door (paragraph 0087)]
With regard to claim 15, Baillargeon et al. meets the limitation of:
the entry gate is biased toward a closed position by a mechanical biasing system that is separate from, and independent of, the low-power-consumption latch module [a secondary means for securing the door in the form of a chain or strap installed at the door (paragraph 0087)]
With regard to claim 16, Baillargeon et al. meets the limitation of:
the system comprises a docking station that is located proximate the entry gate and to which the connector can be docked when not connected to the harness of the user [an aerialift platform/basket operator being restrained to an aerialift platform/basket (paragraph 0066)]
With regard to claim 17, Baillargeon et al. meets the limitation of:
the system is configured so that after the fall-protection monitoring system has determined that the connector of the safety line appears to have been connected to the safety harness of the accessor and the low-power-consumption latch module has unlatched the entry gate, if the base unit of the fall- protection monitoring system wirelessly receives connector status information from the at least one sensor module indicating that the connector no longer appears to be connected to the harness, the fall-protection monitoring system will emit at least one warning notification indicating that the connector does not appear to be connected to the harness [the connection of a lanyard is detected via the safety lanyard detection sensor and the connection signal is transmitted to the interface monitoring unit where if the lanyard is not connected to the harness ring, the interface monitoring unit verbalizes a reminder to the operator that the safety lanyard is not attached (paragraphs 0071, 0072, 0073, and paragraph 0094)]
With regard to claim 18, Baillargeon et al. meets the limitation of:
the system further comprises an entry gate sensor module comprising one or more sensors that can ascertain whether the entry gate is closed or is open so that the entry gate sensor module can provide a "closed" or "open" auxiliary signal to the fall-protection interlocking system [the door latch system detecting the primary interlock door latch and/or secondary door security system (paragraph 0087)]
With regard to claim 20, Baillargeon et al. meets the limitations of:
a connector of a safety line of a fall-protection apparatus that is installed at the access-controlled area appears to be connected to a safety harness of a user located outwardly-proximate to an entry gate to the access-controlled area [a tether attached to an operator that is of a certain length where the tether is within grasp of the operator and attached to a safety latch that is facing the entry point for a basket (paragraph 0066 and figure 3, items 158 and 162)]
However, Baillargeon et al. fails to disclose of receiving a positive signal and upon receiving the positive signal, using a low-power-consumption latch module that is installed at the entry gate to unlatch the entry gate so that the entry gate can be temporarily opened so that the user can enter the access-controlled fall-risk area through the opened entry gate. In the field of latch devices, Park teaches:
receiving a positive signal and upon receiving the positive signal, using a low-power-consumption latch module that is installed at the entry gate to unlatch the entry gate so that the entry gate can be temporarily opened so that the user can enter the access-controlled fall-risk area through the opened entry gate [a control unit monitors whether a feeding detection signal is input through the feeding detection means, and blocks the unlocking of the digital door lock when the feeding detection signal is input through the feeding detection means when the entry detection signal of the worker is input from the access detection means (page 2, paragraph 9)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Baillargeon et al. and Park to create a safety tethering system where the system permits the operation of a basket/platform and use of an entry door to said basket/platform when the system detects the attachment of an operator’s tether to a latch in the basket/platform in order to prevent the operator from operating the basket/platform without being safely attached to the tether for his/her own safety wherein the motivation to combine is an active interface monitoring and warning system for fall arresting/prevention devices (Baillargeon et al., paragraph 0002).
Claim(s) 7, 9, 10, 11, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baillargeon et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0217091] in view of Park [Korean Patent Application KR1020100011178], and in further view of Baillargeon et al.-2 [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0092613]
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Baillargeon et al. and Park fails to disclose of the system comprises at least one override actuator that is accessible from outside the access-controlled area and that can be actuated to send an override signal to the lower-power-consumption latch module, and wherein upon receipt of the override signal the low-power-consumption latch module unlatches the entry gate. In the field of fall prevention systems, Baillargeon et al.-2 teaches:
the system comprises at least one override actuator that is accessible from outside the access-controlled area and that can be actuated to send an override signal to the lower-power-consumption latch module, and wherein upon receipt of the override signal the low-power-consumption latch module unlatches the entry gate [the remote control is easily accessible in an emergency and may allow for an operator to quickly lower themselves or maneuver the aerial lift to a safe location and in many cases save the operator's life (paragraph 0057)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Baillargeon et al., Park, and Baillargeon et al.-2 to create a safety tethering system where the system has an override mechanism allowing the operator to lower the platform/basket in the event of a life threatening emergency in order to prevent the operator from being injured or losing his/her life wherein the motivation to combine is an active interface monitoring and warning system for fall arresting/prevention devices (Baillargeon et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 9, the combination of Baillargeon et al. and Park fails to disclose of the fall-protection apparatus comprises a self-retracting lifeline (SRL) comprising a housing, with a proximal end of the safety line of the fall-protection apparatus being connected to a drum that is within the housing of the SRL and is rotatably connected to the housing of the SRL and with the safety line being extendable out of the housing and retractable into the housing; and, wherein the housing of the SRL is attached to a support structure that is generally overhead of the access-controlled area. In the field of fall prevention systems, Baillargeon et al.-2 teaches:
the fall-protection apparatus comprises a self-retracting lifeline (SRL) comprising a housing, with a proximal end of the safety line of the fall-protection apparatus being connected to a drum that is within the housing of the SRL and is rotatably connected to the housing of the SRL and with the safety line being extendable out of the housing and retractable into the housing; and, wherein the housing of the SRL is attached to a support structure that is generally overhead of the access-controlled area [an operator connected to a self retractable reel wherein the tether is affixed to an anchor bracket on a suspended or supported scaffolding (paragraphs 0058 and 0059 as well as figure 13, items 170, 172, 174, and 176)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Baillargeon et al., Park, and Baillargeon et al.-2 to create a safety tethering system where the system utilizes a retractable tethering system allowing the tether to retract and pull the operator into safety wherein the motivation to combine is an active interface monitoring and warning system for fall arresting/prevention devices (Baillargeon et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 10, the combination of Baillargeon et al. and Park fails to disclose of the housing of the self-retracting lifeline is fixed at a location that is selected so that the distal end of the safety line is graspable by the user when the user is located outwardly-proximate to the entry gate. In the field of fall prevention systems, Baillargeon et al.-2 teaches:
the housing of the self-retracting lifeline is fixed at a location that is selected so that the distal end of the safety line is graspable by the user when the user is located outwardly-proximate to the entry gate [an operator connected to a self retractable reel wherein the tether is affixed to an anchor bracket on a suspended or supported scaffolding (paragraphs 0058 and 0059 as well as figure 13, items 170, 172, 174, and 176)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Baillargeon et al., Park, and Baillargeon et al.-2 to create a safety tethering system where the system utilizes a retractable tethering system allowing the tether to retract and pull the operator into safety while also allowing the operator to grasp the tether to save his/her own life from harm or death wherein the motivation to combine is an active interface monitoring and warning system for fall arresting/prevention devices (Baillargeon et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Baillargeon et al. and Park fails to disclose of the housing of the self-retracting lifeline is movable in at least one generally horizontal direction along at least a portion of the access-controlled area to at least one location at which the distal end of the safety line is graspable by the user when the user is located outwardly-proximate to the entry gate. In the field of fall prevention systems, Baillargeon et al.-2 teaches:
the housing of the self-retracting lifeline is movable in at least one generally horizontal direction along at least a portion of the access-controlled area to at least one location at which the distal end of the safety line is graspable by the user when the user is located outwardly-proximate to the entry gate [an operator connected to a self retractable reel wherein the tether is affixed to an anchor bracket on a suspended or supported scaffolding (paragraphs 0058 and 0059 as well as figure 13, items 170, 172, 174, and 176)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Baillargeon et al., Park, and Baillargeon et al.-2 to create a safety tethering system where the system utilizes a retractable tethering system allowing the tether to retract and pull the operator into safety wherein the motivation to combine is an active interface monitoring and warning system for fall arresting/prevention devices (Baillargeon et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 19, the combination of Baillargeon et al. and Park fails to disclose of the system further comprises a user authorization module that can ascertain whether a person is an authorized user of the access-controlled area so that the user authorization module can provide an "authorized" or "not authorized" secondary signal to the fall-protection
interlocking system. In the field of fall prevention systems, Baillargeon et al.-2 teaches:
the system further comprises a user authorization module that can ascertain whether a person is an authorized user of the access-controlled area so that the user authorization module can provide an "authorized" or "not authorized" secondary signal to the fall-protection interlocking system [other verbal alarms and communication transmissions may alert authority to unauthorized use of the equipment by unqualified workers (paragraph 0050)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Baillargeon et al., Park, and Baillargeon et al.-2 to create a safety tethering system where the system issues alarms when unauthorized users attempt to use the basket apparatus in order to prevent injury to the unauthorized users wherein the motivation to combine is an active interface monitoring and warning system for fall arresting/prevention devices (Baillargeon et al., paragraph 0002).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0106855 to Al-Rasheed et al. discloses systems, methods, and apparatuses for enduring worker safety.
U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0134149 to Carlson et al. discloses a fall protection system with a monitoring system.
U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0231402 to Flynt et al. discloses a personal fall protection monitoring system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMESHANAND MAHASE whose telephone number is (571) 270-7223. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00AM - 5:00PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAMESHANAND MAHASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2689
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights