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 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:
“separating element” in line 2 of claim 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostrobod (US5927438A) in view of Hall (EP3293405A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ostrobrod discloses a rescue device for rescuing a person suspended from a structure, the rescue device comprising: a friction device (104; Figures 1-4) configured to be coupled to a rope (62), the friction device (104; 64) comprising an adjustment mechanism (column 6, lines 7-14, grab handle for releasing or locking to the rope; 90) for adjusting the amount of friction acting on the rope (62); a pulley unit (10) configured to be used with the rope (62) to form a pulley, the pulley unit (10) comprising: at least one pulley wheel (40, 42, 68, 70); a one-way freewheel clutch (74, 78; Figure 7) coupled to the at least one pulley wheel (40, 42, 68, 70), wherein the one-way freewheel clutch (74, 78) is configured to allow the at least one pulley wheel (42) to rotate in a first rotational direction and prevent the at least one pulley wheel (42; column 4, lines 29-44) from rotating in a second rotational direction, but fails to teach an integral carabiner.
Hall teaches a similar rescue device and further teaches an integral carabiner (300; Figures 8-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rescue device of Ostrobod to include the integral carabiner as taught by Hall in order to prevent loss of the carabiner and provide quick and easy installation of the rope and attachment to a structure.
Regarding claim 2, Ostrobrod discloses wherein the pulley unit (10) comprises: a first pulley unit (40, 42) comprising a first pulley wheel (40); a second pulley unit (68, 70) comprising a second pulley wheel (70), wherein the at least one pulley wheel (40, 42, 68, 70) comprises one or more of the first (40), or second pulley wheels (70).
Regarding claim 3, Ostrobrod discloses wherein the second pulley unit (68, 70) comprises a third pulley wheel (68), wherein the at least one pulley wheel (40, 42, 68, 70) comprises one or more of the first (40), second (70) or third pulley wheels (68).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 20, Ostrobrod discloses wherein the at least one pulley wheel (40, 42, 68, 70) comprises the first pulley wheel (40), and wherein the friction device (104; 64) and first and second pulley units (68,70; 40, 42) are configured to receive rope (62) that extends from a point of attachment (58; Figure 1) on the first pulley unit (40, 42) to the second pulley wheel (70) of the second pulley unit (68, 70), passing around the second pulley wheel (70), extending from the second pulley wheel (70) to the first pulley wheel (40) of the first pulley unit (40, 42), passing around the first pulley wheel (40), extending from the first pulley wheel (40) to the third pulley wheel (68) of the second pulley unit (68, 70), passing around the third pulley wheel (68), and extending from the third pulley wheel (68) to the friction device (104; 64).
Regarding claim 6, Ostrobrod discloses wherein the rescue device is configured such that, in use, the rope (62) does not extend more than 360 degrees about the at least one pulley wheel (40, 42, 68, 70; Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Ostrobrod discloses the above rescue device and further teaches where the rescue device is configured to be used with rope (62) having a diameter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rescue device of Ostrobod to be used with rope having a diameter less than or equal to 10 mm in order to reduce the size and weight of the pulley system and further ensure that the pulleys are engaged to the rope to prevent runoff. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Ostrobrod discloses the above rescue device and further teaches wherein the at least one pulley wheel (40, 42, 68, 70) comprises a wheel having diameter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rescue device of Ostrobod to include a wheel having a diameter equal to or less than 38 mm in order to reduce the size and weight of the pulley system and enable faster operation. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Ostrobrod discloses wherein the friction device (104; 64) comprises a third connector (end attachment points of handle of rope grab 104 and handle 90; Figures 1-2), the third connector configured for connecting the friction device (104; 64) to an operator (22; column 6, lines 15-27) of the rescue device.
Regarding claim 18, Ostrobrod discloses the method comprising: lowering the person (22) suspended from the structure (column 3, lines 1-14), wherein lowering the person (22) comprises: introducing rope (62) through the friction device (104; 64) and into the pulley (pulley unit 10) so as to lower the person (22), wherein lowering the person (22) causes a first friction component (clutch pawl and ratchet 74, 78) to be generated between the rope (62) and the at least one pulley wheel (40) and causes a second friction component (friction device 104;64) to be generated between the rope (62) and the friction device (104; 64), said first and second friction components providing resistance to the lowering of the person (22; column 4, line 20 – column 5, line 6).
Regarding claim 19, Ostrobrod discloses raising the person (22) suspended from the structure, wherein raising the person (22) comprises: applying a force to the rope (62) so as to raise the person (22); taking in slack rope (72) through the friction device (104; 64) while holding the person (22) stationary so as to remove the slack rope (72) from the pulley unit (10); wherein holding the person (22) stationary is assisted by the first friction component (clutch pawl and ratchet 74, 78) generated between the rope (62) and the at least one pulley wheel (40; column 4, line 20 – column 5, line 6).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostrobod, in view of Hall, and in further view of Mauthner (US20080203371A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ostrobrod discloses the above rescue device and further teaches the one way freewheel clutch (74, 78), but fails to teach a sprag clutch.
Mauthner teaches a similar rescue device and further teaches a sprag clutch (40; ¶0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rescue device of Ostrobod to include the sprag clutch as taught by Mauthner in order to provide an improved compact design, higher torque capacity, quicker response, and low maintenance.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostrobod, in view of Hall, and in further view of Spydell (US20170050055A1).
Regarding claims 13-14, modified Ostrobrod discloses the above rescue device, but fails to teach wherein the friction device comprises a locking mechanism, the locking mechanism configured to prevent removal of the friction device from the rope, the locking mechanism comprising the third connector;
wherein the friction device comprises a plate, the plate moveable between an open position and a closed position, wherein the open position allows the friction device to be coupled to the rope and the closed position prevents the friction device from being decoupled from the rope; and the third connector comprises a carabiner coupled to the friction device such that the plate cannot move between the open and closed positions.
Spydell teaches a similar rescue device and further teaches wherein the friction device (1; Figures 1-9) comprises a locking mechanism (2, 4, 13), the locking mechanism (2, 4, 13) configured to prevent removal of the friction device (1) from the rope (22a-b), the locking mechanism (2, 4, 13) comprising the third connector (2, 4);
wherein the friction device (1) comprises a plate (9), the plate (9) moveable between an open position (Figure 4) and a closed position (Figure 3), wherein the open position allows the friction device (1) to be coupled to the rope (22a-b) and the closed position prevents the friction device (1) from being decoupled from the rope (22a-b); and the third connector (2, 4) comprises a carabiner (2) coupled to the friction device (1) such that the plate (9) cannot move between the open and closed positions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rescue device of Ostrobod to include the locking mechanism and moveable plate as taught by Spydell in order to secure the friction device to a harness worn by a person and to allow for easy and quick opening/closing of the friction device for installing/removing the rope.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostrobod, in view of Hall, in view of Spydell, and in further view of Moine (US9719552B2).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ostrobrod discloses the above rescue device, but fails to teach wherein the third connector comprises a separating element separating a first region of the third connector and a second region of the third connector, the first region comprising a gate of the third connector and the second region comprising a portion of the friction device.
Moine teaches a similar rescue device and further teaches wherein the third connector (1; Figures 1-6) comprises a separating element (5) separating a first region (area of carabiner 1 below bar 5c; Figure 6) of the third connector (1) and a second region (area of carabiner 1 above bar 5c) of the third connector (1), the first region comprising a gate (3) of the third connector (1) and the second region comprising a portion of the friction device (4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rescue device of Ostrobod to include the separating element as taught by Moine in order to prevent motion of the friction device beyond the area defined by the separating element (column 1, lines 27-32).
Regarding claim 16, Ostrobrod discloses the method comprising: lowering the person (22) suspended from the structure (column 3, lines 1-14), wherein lowering the person (22) comprises: introducing rope (62) through the friction device (104; 64) and into the pulley unit (10) so as to lower the person (22), wherein lowering the person (22) causes a first friction component (clutch pawl and ratchet 74, 78) to be generated between the rope (62) and the at least one pulley wheel (40) and causes a second friction component (friction device 104;64) to be generated between the rope (62) and the friction device (104; 64), said first and second friction components providing resistance to the lowering of the person (22; column 4, line 20 – column 5, line 6).
Regarding claim 17, Ostrobrod discloses raising the person (22) suspended from the structure, wherein raising the person (22) comprises: applying a force to the rope (62) so as to raise the person (22); taking in slack rope (72) through the friction device (104; 64) while holding the person (22) stationary so as to remove the slack rope (72) from the pulley unit (10); wherein holding the person (22) stationary is assisted by the first friction component (clutch pawl and ratchet 74, 78) generated between the rope (62) and the at least one pulley wheel (40; column 4, line 20 – column 5, line 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the last 6 lines of page 11, in pages 12-13, and the first 9 lines of page 14, the applicant argued that the disclosures of Ostrobrod, Mauthner, Spydell, and Moine fail to teach the pulley unit comprising an integral carabiner.
The examiner agrees that the disclosures of Ostrobrod, Mauthner, Spydell, and Moine fail to teach the pulley unit comprising an integral carabiner. However, the disclosure of Hall teaches the limitation as described above. Thus, contradicting to applicant’s assertions, such amendment does not overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, VICTORIA AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313)446-4858. 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.
/H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights