DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 14 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
Line 3, “that” should be removed,
Line 3, “the” should be replaced with –a—,
Line 4, the first incidene of “and a” should be replaced with --. A--,
Line 4, “that” should be removed,
Line 5, “by” should be replaced with –for--.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0003], line 3, “See, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,752,242, 8,544,603, and 10,207,151”.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 9 recites the limitation "the metal portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rullo (US8544603) in view of Park (KR101797672).
7. Rullo discloses a pole climbing fall restriction assembly (Fig. 1), comprising:
a strap (14) having a first end and a second end;
a connector (26) coupled to the first end of the strap;
a D-ring (20) coupled to the connector (26) and comprising an opening (at 18); and,
a cam assembly (22, 24) slidably positioned along the strap and the rope.
Rullo fails to disclose the connector comprising a first opening having a first width leading to an open nose section having a second width wherein the first width is larger than the second width. However, Rullo does disclose that the connector includes first and second openings (110b and 110c, see Figs. 4, and 6A-6B) respectively, and Rullo further discloses that, “It will be recognized that connecting component 120 or 140 may alternately be attached to either of side openings 110a, 110c instead of to central opening 110b. This is particularly helpful in situations where the wearer does not have a good view of SOD-ring 100 (e.g., in dim light or when the view is otherwise obstructed). While the anti-rotation feature is defeated by such an action, the overall functionality of fall protector 180 is maintained”. Also, Park teaches, in the context of pole climbing fall restriction equipment, a connector (A, Fig. 8b) comprising a first opening having a first width (the top portion of the opening) leading to an open nose section (the bottom portion of the opening) having a second width wherein the first width is larger than the second width. It 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 to have modified the connector of Rullo to include a first opening having a first width leading to an open nose section having a second width and wherein the first width is larger than the second width in the pole climbing fall restriction assembly of Rullo according to the teachings of Park in order to provide an operator with a better chance of engaging the anti-rotation feature of the connector in low light conditions.
Rullo in view of Park fail to disclose a rope having a first end and a second end, wherein the rope is dimensioned to pass through the opening of the D-ring, and that the cam assembly is slidably positioned along the rope.
However, Rullo discloses a strap (12) having a first end (at the top 16) and a second end (34), wherein the strap is dimensioned to pass through the opening (18) of the D-ring. Also note that rope and strap are understood to be equivalents in the art. Per MPEP 2144.06.II, equivalence may be used as a rationale to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, it 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 to have substituted rope for the strap of Rullo since rope and strap are understood to be equivalents in the art.
8. Rullo in view of Park discloses the pole climbing fall restriction assembly of claim 7, further comprising a metal portion positioned at at least one end of the rope.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rullo (US8544603) in view of Park (KR101797672) and further in view of Robinson (US20120057334).
9. Rullo in view of Park fails to disclose the pole climbing fall restriction assembly of claim 7, further comprising an accessory magnetically coupled to the metal portion. Robinson discloses, in the context of accessories, an accessory magnetically couplable to metal. It 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 to have included an accessory magnetically coupled to the metal portion of the pole climbing fall restriction assembly of Rullo in view of Park according to the teachings of Robinson in order to have a flashlight nearby should low light conditions be present during ascent/descent of the pole.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rullo (US8544603).
10. Rullo discloses a pole climbing fall restriction assembly (Fig. 1), comprising:
a strap (14) having a first end and a second end;
a connector (26) coupled to the first end of the strap;
a D-ring (20) coupled to the connector and comprising an opening (at 18); and
a cam assembly (22, 24) slidably positioned along the strap, the cam assembly further comprising:
a cam (24) pivotably mounted to a frame between first and second sidewalls (top and bottom of Fig. 3b of Rullo); and
a handle (22) pivotally mounted to the cam.
Rullo fails to disclose a rope having a first end and a second end, wherein the rope is dimensioned to pass through the opening of the D-ring and that the cam assembly is slidably positioned along the rope.
However, Rullo discloses a strap (12) having a first end (at the top 16) and a second end (34), wherein the strap is dimensioned to pass through the opening (18) of the D-ring. Also note that rope and strap are understood to be equivalents in the art. Per MPEP 2144.06.II, equivalence may be used as a rationale to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, it 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 to have substituted rope for the strap of Rullo since rope and strap are understood to be equivalents in the art.
13. Rullo fails to disclose the pole climbing fall restriction assembly of claim 10, wherein the cam further comprises a plurality of protrusions positioned to engage a surface of a pole when the pole climbing fall restriction assembly is in use. However, note that Rullo discloses a protrusion (164, Figs. 7a and 7b, also see col. 5, lines 1-5: “Buckle assembly 160 has a rear surface 162 upon which may dispose one or more cleats 164. Cleats 164 are adapted to engage the wood pole, not shown, against which rear surface 162 of buckle assembly 160 rests when the inventive wood pole fall restriction device 180 utilizing buckle assembly 160 is in use by a wearer”). Also note that per MPEP 2144.04.VI.B, duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. It 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 to have included a plurality of protrusions positioned to engage a surface of a pole when the pole climbing fall restriction assembly is in use in the pole climbing fall restriction assembly of Rullo in order to provide even more engagement with the surface of the pole.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rullo (US8544603) in view of Post (US300797).
11. Rullo fails to disclose the pole climbing fall restriction assembly of claim 10, wherein the handle is round in shape. Post teaches, in the context of fall restriction assemblies, wherein a handle (A) is round in shape. It 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 to have included wherein the handle is round in shape in the pole climbing fall restriction assembly of Rullo according to the teachings of Post in order to provide a more ergonomic shaped handle that facilitates smooth modulation of cam pressure.
12. Rullo fails to disclose the pole climbing fall restriction assembly of claim 10, wherein a portion of the rope is positioned within the handle when the pole climbing fall restriction assembly is in use. Post teaches, in the context of fall restriction assemblies, wherein a portion of a rope is positioned within the handle (A, see Fig. 1 of Post). It 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 to have included wherein a portion of the rope is positioned within the handle when the pole climbing fall restriction assembly is in use in the pole climbing restriction assembly of Rullo according to the teachings of Post in order to provide more tactile feedback to the operator via movement of the rope through the handle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ben Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571)272-9656. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 7 to 5.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/BAP/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights