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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed December 10, 2024. The application has been updated accordingly.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (2008/0000719) in view of Paulson (5,699,657).
Jones discloses:
Claim 1: A bridge rope assembly (Fig. 1; 10) configured to couple together a tree rope to a first bridge loop (Fig. 4; see detail) and a second bridge loop (Fig. 4; see detail) on a harness (Fig. 4; 18), the bridge rope assembly including:
a main body (Fig. 1; 12) comprising a rope (Fig. 1; 12, Para. [0018]) having a first end (Fig. 1; see detail) and a second end (Fig. 1; see detail), the main body having an eye loop (Fig. 1; 16) in the main body, the eye loop being configured to permanently or releasably engage with the first bridge loop (Fig. 4; Para. [0023]) to permanently or releasably secure the main body to the first bridge loop (Fig. 4; Para. [0018]), the main body comprising a first portion (Fig. 1; see detail) including the first end and a second portion (Fig. 1; see detail) including the second end (Fig. 1; see detail); and
a friction hitch (Fig. 1; 28) being positioned on the main body between the second end and the eye loop (Fig. 1; see detail), the friction hitch being configured to permanently or releasably engage (Fig. 1; via 24) with the second bridge loop to permanently or releasably secure the friction hitch to the second bridge loop, the friction hitch comprising a closed loop (Fig. 2A; 26).
Jones fails to disclose the eye loop being formed by a splice where the first portion extends through the second portion of the main body such that the first end is positioned within the second portion adjacent to the second end.
However, Paulson discloses forming an eye loop (Fig. 10; 28) by a splice (Fig. 10; 10) where the first portion (Fig. 10; nearest 44) extends through the second portion (Fig. 10; nearest 40) and the first end (Fig. 10; 22) is positioned within the second portion adjacent the second end (Fig. 10; 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the eye loop of Jones with the spliced eye loop, as taught by Paulson, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would create friction when securing the eye loop and prevent loosening of the connection.
Thus, in combination Jones and Paulson disclose the bridge rope assembly, of Jones, where the eye loop is formed by the splice, of Paulson.
PNG
media_image1.png
689
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
641
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Jones discloses the bridge rope assembly according to claim 1, wherein the rope has a length from the first end to the second end between 72.0 inches and 126.0 inches (Para. [0018]).
Claim 3: Jones and Paulson disclose the bridge rope assembly according to claim 1, wherein a distance of the eye loop to the second end is between 24.0 inches and 40.0 inches (Jones and Paulson fail to expressly disclose a distance of 24 to 40 inches; however, they do disclose an eye loop that can be expanded and contracted therefore the distance of the eye loop from the second end can be varied and, as such, be located between 24 and 40 inches from the second end, therefore the prior art is capable of meeting the claim limitation).
Claim 4: Jones discloses the bridge rope assembly according to claim 3, wherein the main body includes a stop knot (Fig. 1; 20) in the second portion adjacent to the second end (Fig. 1; see detail).
Claim 5: Jones and Paulson disclose the bridge rope assembly according to claim 4, further including a securing member (Paulson - Fig. 10; 40) being positioned on the main body at a juncture of the first and second ends (Fig. 10; combined at 40) to retain the first and second ends at a static position relative to each other (Fig. 10; held in position at 40).
Claim 6: Jones discloses the bridge rope assembly according to claim 4, wherein the closed loop comprises a single rope being formed into the closed loop (Fig. 2A; 26 is depicted as a single rope).
Claim 7: Jones discloses the bridge rope assembly according to claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein the single rope of the closed loop has a length between 40.0 inches and 60.0 inches.
While Jones fails to disclose the single rope of the closed loop having a length between 40 and 60 inches, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a longer length of rope for the closed loop, since it has been held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” The examiner contends that a longer segment of rope would not perform differently than that of the length recited by Jones, since it would not change the purpose or function of the friction hitch. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) – Changes in Size.
Claims 8, 9 and 13: Jones discloses the bridge rope assembly according to claims 1, 7 and 12, wherein the closed loop has a total circumference of between 20.0 inches and 30.0 inches (Para. [0019]).
Claim 12: Jones and Paulson disclose the bridge rope assembly according to claim 9, wherein a distance of the eye loop to the second end is between 24.0 inches and 40.0 inches (Jones and Paulson fail to expressly disclose a distance of 24 to 40 inches; however, they do disclose an eye loop that can be expanded and contracted therefore the distance of the eye loop from the second end can be varied and, as such, be located between 24 and 40 inches from the second end, therefore the prior art is capable of meeting the claim limitation).
Claim 14: Jones and Paulson disclose the bridge rope assembly according to claim 12, wherein a distance between the first and second ends is less than 2.0 inches (Jones and Paulson fail to expressly disclose a distance between the first and second ends of less than 2 inches; however, Paulson depicts in Fig. 10 first and second ends (ends of 20 and 22) that are in close proximity to one another. Paulson discusses an example rope of 5/8 inch thickness, with that thickness in mind the scale would determine that the distance between the ends is less than 2 inches, therefore the prior art is capable of meeting the claim limitation).
Claim 15: Jones and Paulson disclose a method of installing the bridge rope assembly on a harness according to claim 1, comprising the steps of:
releasably engaging the eye loop (Jones/Paulson - Fig. 1; 16) with the first bridge loop (Fig. 4; see detail) of the harness (Fig. 4; 18); and releasably engaging the friction hitch (Fig. 1; 28) with the second bridge loop (Fig. 4; see detail) of the harness.
Claim 16: Jones and Paulson disclose the method of claim 15, wherein the step of releasably engaging the eye loop with the first bridge loop comprises inserting the second end of the rope through the first bridge loop and through the eye loop and forming a releasable knot with the eye loop wrapped around the first bridge loop (Fig. 1; 16, Para. [0018]).
Claim 17: Jones and Paulson disclose the method of claim 15, wherein the step of releasably engaging the friction hitch with the second bridge loop comprises inserting a portion of the closed loop (Fig. 2A; via 24) through the second bridge loop (Fig. 4; see detail) and forming a releasable knot (Fig. 1; nearest 14) with the portion of the closed loop wrapped around the second bridge loop.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (2008/0000719) in view of Paulson (5,699,657) and further in view of De Sousa Faria (2019/0301089).
Claims 10 and 11: Jones discloses the bridge rope assembly according to claims 1 and 9, but fails to disclose wherein the main body and the friction hitch each are comprised of UHMWPE.
However, De Sousa Faria discloses a rope comprised of UHMWPE (Fig. 1; Para. [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main body and friction hitch ropes of Jones to be manufactured of UHMWPE, as taught by De Sousa Faria, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a rope with high tenacities, low stretch and low elongation at break (Para. [0015]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in independent claim 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation of “a bridge rope assembly configured to couple together a tree rope to a first bridge loop and a second bridge loop on a harness” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
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 Kathleen M. McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-9139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/Kathleen M. McFarland/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Kathleen M. McFarland
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights