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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-15, 17-19, 21, and 24-25 are pending and have been examined in this application. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 10/03/2024 and 06/12/2025 has/have been taken into account.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 01/12/2026, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 3-7, 10-15, 17-18, and 21 have been amended; Claims 2 and 16 have been canceled; Claims 24 and 25 have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-7, 9-15, 17-19, 21, and 24-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-5, 18-19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites a movable arm that is pivotable about a vertical axis and claims 4-5 and 18-19 recite an arm that is movable and lockable along a longitudinal axis. However, these claims are dependent upon independent claims which now recite a movable arm that “is pivotable relative to the head assembly about a horizontal axis between an upright position and an extended position” and the specification does not provide support for a movable arm that is pivotable about a horizontal axis and also pivotable about a vertical axis and/or is slidable along a longitudinal axis. Additionally, no support can be found for a movable arm that comprises a lock configured to lock the movable arm in an upright position as recited in claim 24. For these reasons, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4-5 and 17 each recite “an extended position”, it is unclear if each respective extended position is the same as the extended positions recited in independent claims 1 and 14 or if it is a separate position. Additionally it is unclear if the extended and retracted positions recited in claim 5 are the same as those recited in claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Avila, Jr. (US 3,978,989).
In regards to Claim 1, Avila discloses a safe access system, comprising: a head assembly (Avila: Fig. 1; A, B, C) comprising an attachment portion for attaching to mounting hardware at a top of a climb path on a structure to be accessed; a moveable arm (Avila: Fig. 1; D) extending from the head assembly, wherein the moveable arm is pivotable relative to the head assembly about a horizontal axis between an upright position (Avila: Fig. 3) and an extended position (Avila: Fig. 2); a first connector (Avila: Fig. 1; 57) attached to the head assembly and configured for connecting to a vertical lifeline, wherein the first connector is horizontally spaced apart from the attachment portion of the head assembly; and a second connector (Avila: Fig. 1; 47, 48) attached to the moveable arm and configured for connecting to a power ascender line.
In regards to Claim 3, Avila discloses the safe access system according to claim 1, wherein the moveable arm (Avila: Fig. 1; D) is pivotable about a vertical axis (Avila: Col. 2, Ln. 38-47).
In regards to Claim 4, Avila discloses the safe access system according to claim 1, wherein the second connector (Avila: Fig. 1; 47, 48) is moveable along a longitudinal axis of the moveable arm (Avila: Fig. 1; D) between a retracted position and an extended position.
In regards to Claim 5, Avila discloses the safe access system according to claim 1, wherein the moveable arm (Avila: Fig. 1; D) can extend from a retracted position to an extended position, and wherein the arm is configured to lock in the retracted position, the extended position, and in one or more intermediate positions between the retracted position and the extended position (Avila: Col. 2, Ln. 48-64).
In regards to Claim 24, Avila discloses the safe access system according to claim 1, wherein the moveable arm (Avila: Fig. 1; D) comprises a lock configured (Avila: Fig. 1-3; 53, F, K) to lock the moveable arm in the upright position and in the extended position.
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avila, Jr. (US 3,978,989).
Regarding Claim 9, Avila discloses the safe access system according to claim 1, wherein the first connector (Avila: Fig. 1; 57) is spaced apart from the second connector (Avila: Fig. 1; 47, 48) a distance. Avila fails to explicitly disclose a distance in the range of 3 inches to 30 inches
Avila discloses the claimed invention, except for the specific numerical ranges recited in claims 9 and 10. However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a distance in the recited range, with the motivation of providing a specific range of adjustment positions for the arm (Avila: Col. 2, Ln. 48-64), and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding Claim 10, Avila discloses the safe access system according to claim 1, wherein the head assembly (Avila: Fig. 1; A, B, C) has a proximal end that attaches to the mounting hardware and a distal end opposite the proximal end, and wherein the second connector (Avila: Fig. 1; 47, 48) is spaced distally from the distal end a distance. Avila fails to explicitly disclose a distance in the range of 12 inches to 36 inches. [Note: See the rejection of claim 9 for motivation and rationale.]
Claims 1, 11-12, 14, 17, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-2219815) in view of Franckewich (US 2003/0159882).
In regards to Claim 1, Kim discloses a safe access system, comprising: a head assembly (Kim: Fig. 1-3; 120, 130, 140, 310) comprising an attachment portion (Kim: Fig. 1-3; 120) for attaching to mounting hardware at a top of a climb path on a structure to be accessed; a moveable arm (Kim: Fig. 1-5; 380) extending from the head assembly, wherein the moveable arm is pivotable relative to the head assembly about a horizontal axis between an upright position and an extended position (Kim: Fig. 5); and a second connector (Kim: Fig. 1-3; 200) attached to the moveable arm and configured for connecting to a power ascender line.
Kim fails to disclose a first connector attached to the head assembly and configured for connecting to a vertical lifeline, wherein the first connector is horizontally spaced apart from the attachment portion of the head assembly. However, Franckewich teaches a first connector (Franckewich: Fig. 2; 76) attached to a head assembly (Franckewich: Fig. 2; 10) and configured for connecting to a vertical lifeline, wherein the first connector is horizontally spaced apart from an attachment portion of the head assembly.
Kim and Franckewich are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. safety line supports; providing safety line locations. 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 head assembly in Kim with the first connector and/or lifeline from Franckewich, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means for the head assembly to secure a safety line at a spaced location from a building, enabling a worker to secure themselves to the building at any height location to limit their fall distance, thereby improving the safety of the worker (Franckewich: [0027]).
In regards to Claim 11, Kim, as modified, teaches the safe access system according to claim 1, further comprising a third connector (Kim: Fig. 3; 150) attached to the head assembly and configured for use as a safety tie-off transition point or as back-up safety line.
In regards to Claim 12, Kim, as modified, teaches the safe access system of claim 1, wherein the head assembly (Kim: Fig. 1-3; 120, 130, 140, 310) has an open head configuration to allow for visual inspection of the first connector and the second connector.
In regards to Claim 25, Kim, as modified, teaches the safe access system according to claim 1, wherein the head assembly comprises a stop (Kim: Fig. 2-5; 310) configured to engage the moveable arm when the moveable arm is in the extended position.
In regards to Claim 14, Kim discloses a method of anchoring a vertical lifeline and a power ascender line at the top of a climb path on a structure, the method comprising: attaching an attachment portion (Kim: Fig. 1-3; 120) of a head assembly (Kim: Fig. 1-3; 120, 130, 140, 310) to mounting hardware (Kim: Fig. 5; 340) on the structure at the top of the climb path, the head assembly further comprising: a moveable arm (Kim: Fig. 1-5; 380) extending from the head assembly body, wherein the moveable arm is pivotable relative to the head assembly about a horizontal axis between an upright position and an extended position (Kim: Fig. 5); and a second connector attached to the moveable arm and configured for connecting to a power ascender line; and attaching the power ascender line to the second connector.
Kim fails to disclose a first connector attached to the head assembly and configured for connecting to a vertical lifeline, wherein the first connector is horizontally spaced apart from the attachment portion of the head assembly; attaching the vertical lifeline to the first connector. However, Franckewich teaches a first connector (Franckewich: Fig. 2; 76) attached to a head assembly (Franckewich: Fig. 2; 10) and configured for connecting to a vertical lifeline, wherein the first connector is horizontally spaced apart from an attachment portion of the head assembly; and attaching a vertical lifeline (Franckewich: Fig. 2; SL) to the first connector. [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation and/or rationale.]
In regards to Claim 17, Kim, as modified, teaches the method of anchoring according to claim 14, further comprising pivoting the movable arm (Kim: Fig. 1-5; 380) to an extended position (Kim: Fig. 5).
In regards to Claim 21, Kim, as modified, teaches the method of anchoring according to claim 14, further comprising attaching at least one of a safety tie off (Kim: Fig. 1-5; 290) and a power ascender back-up safety line to the head assembly at a third location.
Claims 4-5 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-2219815) in view of Franckewich (US 2003/0159882) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nipper (US 9,161,526).
In regards to Claim 4, Kim, as modified, teaches the safe access system according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the second connector is moveable along a longitudinal axis of the moveable arm between a retracted position and an extended position.
However, Nipper teaches a second connector (Nipper: Fig. 2-3; 25) that is moveable along a longitudinal axis of a moveable arm (Nipper: Fig. 2-3; 19, 24) between a retracted position (Nipper: Fig. 2) and an extended position (Nipper: Fig. 3).
Kim and Nipper are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. safety line supports; providing safety line locations on structures. 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 , with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means for the system to select an extended position for the second connector that limits interference of an element being supported by the arm during use (Nipper: Col. 2, Ln. 15-18).
In regards to Claim 5, Kim, as modified, teaches the safe access system according to claim 4, wherein the moveable arm can extend from a retracted position to an extended position, and wherein the arm is configured to lock in the retracted position, the extended position, and in one or more intermediate positions between the retracted position and the extended position (Nipper: Col. 10, Ln. 19-50).
In regards to Claim 18, Kim, as modified, teaches the method of anchoring according to claim 17, but fails to disclose sliding the movable arm along a longitudinal axis to one of a plurality of positions relative to the head assembly. However, Nipper teaches sliding a movable arm (Nipper: Fig. 2-3; 19, 24) along a longitudinal axis to one of a plurality of positions relative to a head assembly (Nipper: Fig. 2-3). [Note: See the rejection of claim 4 for motivation and/or rationale.]
In regards to Claim 19, Kim, as modified, teaches the method of anchoring according to claim 18, further comprising locking the moveable arm in the one of the plurality of positions (Nipper: Col. 10, Ln. 19-50).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-2219815) in view of Franckewich (US 2003/0159882) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TigaSafe (DE 20 2018 106454).
In regards to Claim 13, Kim, as modified, teaches the safe access system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the head assembly is configured to have a universal mounting configuration for attaching to the mounting hardware.
However, TigaSafe teaches a head assembly that is configured to have a universal mounting configuration (TigaSafe: Fig. 7; 8.1, 7.1-7.4, 9.1-9.4, 10.1-10.4) for attaching to the mounting hardware.
Kim and TigaSafe are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. safety line supports; providing safety line locations. 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 head assembly in Kim with the universal mounting configuration from TigaSafe, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a body that can be securely attached to different substrates/surfaces, thereby increasing the utility and safety of the system (TigaSafe: [0006]-[0007]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-2219815) in view of Franckewich (US 2003/0159882) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sudeith et al. (US 2020/0114182).
In regards to Claim 24, Kim, as modified, teaches the safe access system according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the moveable arm comprises a lock configured to lock the moveable arm in the upright position and in the extended position.
However, Sudeith teaches a moveable arm that comprises a lock (Sudeith: Fig. 6B; 50) configured to lock the moveable arm in the upright position and in the extended position.
Kim and Sudeith are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. safety line supports; providing safety line locations. 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 arm and head assembly in Kim with the lock from Sudeith, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means of securing the arm in an upright position, thereby ensure that the system is prevented from being removed from a storage position for unwanted use (Sudeith: [0051]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
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 Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631