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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13, 15, 17-18 and 20-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,585 in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,585. U.S. Patent No. 12,059,585 discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the harness adapter being slidably coupled to the horizontal support, however, U.S. Patent No. 12,059,585 discloses a harness adapter being repositionable along a length of the horizontal support. 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 harness adapter to be slidably coupled to the horizontal support, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the adapter to smoothly move over the length of the horizontal support allowing the harness wearer to move freely along the length of the horizontal support.
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.
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 16-20 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.
Claim 16 recites “coupling a second end portion of the tensile member to the guardrail” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to the examiner how the tensile member attaches to the guardrail. The specification and the drawings only disclose the tensile member being attached to the bracket members and not directly to the guardrail. For the purpose of this Office action the examiner assumes the applicant meant to state attaching the second end of the tensile member to the bracket.
Claim 20 recites “coupling a second end portion of the second tensile member to the second guardrail” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to the examiner how the tensile member attaches to the guardrail. The specification and the drawings only disclose the tensile member being attached to the bracket members and not directly to the guardrail. For the purpose of this Office action the examiner assumes the applicant meant to state attaching the second end of the tensile member to the bracket.
Claims 17-19 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anson et al. (2016/0346570) hereinafter Anson.
Claim 1: A fall arrest system for use with a platform, comprising:
a first bracket (Fig. 3; 30 left) and a second bracket (Fig. 3; 30 right) configured to be coupled to the platform (Fig. 3; 10), wherein the first bracket defines a recess (Fig. 4A; the space created between 52 left and right) configured to receive a guardrail (Fig. 1; 20 or 24) of the platform when the first bracket is coupled to the platform (Fig. 1; 30 left);
a horizontal support (Fig. 1; 36) coupled to the first bracket and the second bracket (Fig. 3; 36 is depicted as coupled between 30 left and right); and
a harness adapter (Fig. 6; 80) slidably coupled to the horizontal support and configured to be coupled to a harness worn by an operator, wherein the harness adapter is repositionable along a length of the horizontal support (Fig. 6; 80 is capable of sliding along 36, Para. [0056]).
Claim 2: The fall arrest system of Claim 1, further comprising the harness (Fig. 9; 106) configured to be worn by the operator (Fig. 9; W).
Claim 3: The fall arrest system of Claim 1, wherein the first bracket is removably coupled to the platform (Fig. 4A; via 62, Para. [0053]).
Claim 4: The fall arrest system of Claim 3, wherein the horizontal support is removably coupled to the first bracket and the second bracket (Fig. 5C; via 40 left and right, Para. [0051]).
Claim 5: The fall arrest system of Claim 1, wherein the second bracket includes a boss (Fig. 4A; 32 right), and wherein an end portion of the horizontal support forms a slot (Fig. 5D; 40 right) configured to receive the boss (Fig. 5D; via 46, Para. [0051]).
Claim 6: The fall arrest system of Claim 5, wherein the boss is a first boss and the end portion is a first end portion (Fig. 5D; at 32 right), wherein the first bracket includes a second boss (Fig. 4A; 32 left) defining a boss aperture (Fig. 4A; located between the tabs 48 on the left), and wherein a second end portion of the horizontal support extends through the boss aperture (Fig. 4A; 36 extends through the aperture defined between the tabs 48).
Claim 7: The fall arrest system of Claim 5, wherein the boss defines a boss aperture (Fig. 4A; 49) and the end portion of the horizontal support defines a first support aperture and a second support aperture (Fig. 5D; 40 left and right), wherein the first support aperture and the second support aperture are configured to align with the boss aperture when the slot receives the boss.
Claim 8: The fall arrest system of Claim 7, wherein a pin (Fig. 5D; 46, Para. [0051]) runs through the boss aperture, the first support aperture, and the second support aperture, coupling the slot to the boss.
Claim 9: The fall arrest system of Claim 1, wherein the horizontal support includes a cable (Fig. 1; 36, Para. [0051]).
Claim 10: The fall arrest system of Claim 1, wherein the recess is a first recess (Fig. 4A; the space created between 52 left and right where 24 passes through as depicted in Fig. 1) configured to receive a first member of the guardrail (Fig. 1; 20 or 24) when the first bracket is coupled to the platform, wherein the first bracket further defines a second recess (Fig. 4A; the space created between 52 left and right where the upper segment of 22 passes through as depicted in Fig. 1) configured to receive a second member of the guardrail (Fig. 1; the upper segment of 22) when the first bracket is coupled to the platform, and wherein the first recess is angularly offset from the second recess (Fig. 4A; the first recess is configured to receive a horizontal member of the guardrail and the second recess is configured to receive a vertical member of the guardrail, as such they are angularly offset from one another).
Claim 11: The fall arrest system of Claim 10, wherein the first recess and the second recess are substantially perpendicular to one another (Fig. 4A; the first recess is configured to receive a horizontal member of the guardrail and the second recess is configured to receive a vertical member of the guardrail, as such they are perpendicular to one another).
Claim 12: The fall arrest system of Claim 10, wherein the second bracket (Fig. 3; 30 right) further defines a third recess (Fig. 4B; the space created between 52 left and right where the lower segment of 22 passes through as depicted in Fig. 1) configured to receive the guardrail when the second bracket is coupled to the platform (Fig. 4B; the lower segment of 22).
Claim 13: A platform assembly, comprising:
a platform (Fig. 9; 100) defining a support surface for an operator (Fig. 9; W), the platform including a guardrail (Fig. 1; 22 & 24);
a first bracket (Fig. 3; 30 left) coupled to the guardrail and defining a lateral aperture (Fig. 4A; the space created between 52 left and right where 24 passes through as depicted in Fig. 1);
a second bracket (Fig. 3; 30 right) coupled to the guardrail and laterally offset from the first bracket (Fig. 4A; the space created between 52 left and right where the upper segment of 22 passes through as depicted in Fig. 1);
a support member (Fig. 9; 36) including a first end portion (Fig. 9; 28 right) coupled to the first bracket and a second end portion (Fig. 9; 28 left) coupled to the second bracket; and
an anchor (Fig. 9; 110) slidably coupled to the support member such that the anchor is repositionable laterally along the support member (Para. [0058]), wherein the anchor is configured to couple a harness (Fig. 9; 106) to the support member, wherein the first end portion and the second end portion of the support member are substantially centered about a lateral axis (Fig. 3; along 14) that extends through the lateral aperture (Fig. 3; where 14 passes through 52).
Claim 14: The platform assembly of Claim 13, further comprising a fall limiter (Fig. 9; 108) configured to couple the harness to the anchor (Para. [0058]).
Claim 15: The platform assembly of Claim 13, wherein the first end portion of the support member extends through the lateral aperture of the first bracket (Fig. 3; where 14 passes through 52).
Claim 16 as best understood by the examiner: A method of providing a fall arrest system, comprising:
providing a harness adapter (Fig. 9; 108) configured to be coupled to a harness (Fig. 9; 106) worn by an operator (Fig. 9; W);
coupling a bracket (Fig. 3; 30 left) to a guardrail (Fig. 1; 22 & 24) of a platform (Fig. 9; 100);
coupling a first end portion of a tensile member (Fig. 4A; 36 left) to the bracket (Fig. 4A; 30 left);
inserting the tensile member through an aperture (Fig. 9; at 110 upper) defined by the harness adapter such that the harness adapter is repositionable along a length of the tensile member (Para. [0058]);
coupling a second end portion of the tensile member (Fig. 4A; 36 right) to the guardrail (Fig. 4A; the bracket (30 right) as understood by the examiner); and
decoupling the bracket (Fig. 3; 30) from the guardrail (Fig. 1; 22 & 24).
Claim 17: The method of Claim 16, wherein the bracket is a first bracket (Fig. 3; 30 left), further comprising coupling a second bracket (Fig. 3; 30 right) to the guardrail (Fig. 1; 22 & 24), and wherein coupling the second end portion of the tensile member (Fig. 4A; 36 right) to the guardrail includes coupling the second end portion of the tensile member to the second bracket (Fig. 3; 30 right).
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anson et al. (2016/0346570) hereinafter Anson.
Claim 19: Anson discloses the method of Claim 16, wherein the platform is a first platform (Fig. 9; 100) and the guardrail is a first guardrail (Fig. 9; 24), but fails to disclose further comprising coupling the bracket to a second guardrail of a second platform.
While Anson fails to disclose a second platform, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the number of platforms to allow a worker to work at various heights, since it has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. The examiner contends that the addition of another platform would not produce an unexpected result, as it would not change the purpose or function of the scaffold. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) – Duplication of Parts.
Claim 20 as best understood by the examiner: Anson discloses the method of Claim 19, wherein the tensile member is a first tensile member, further comprising:
decoupling the bracket (Fig. 3; 30) from the first tensile member (Fig. 3; 36);
coupling a first end portion of a second tensile (Fig. 3; several tensile members (36) are depicted) member to the bracket (Fig. 3; 30);
inserting the second tensile member through the aperture defined by the harness adapter (Fig. 9; 108) such that the harness adapter is repositionable along a length of the second tensile member (Para. [0058]); and
coupling a second end portion of the second tensile member to the second guardrail (Fig. 4A; the bracket (30 left) as understood by the examiner), wherein the length of the first tensile member is different than the length of the second tensile member (Para. [0062]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anson et al. (2016/0346570) hereinafter Anson, as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Casebolt (2006/0272891).
Claim 18: Anson discloses the method of Claim 17, but fails to disclose wherein the second end portion of the tensile member includes a threaded stud, and wherein coupling the second end portion of the tensile member to the second bracket includes:
inserting the threaded stud through a stud aperture defined by the second bracket; and
engaging a fastener with the threaded stud such that the fastener applies a force against the second bracket to tension the tensile member.
However, Casebolt discloses a turnbuckle (Fig. 3; 162).
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 tensile member of Anson to include the turnbuckle, as taught by Casebolt, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow a user to adjust the tension of the tensile member.
While Casebolt fails to specifically disclose a threaded stud engaged with the fastener, the examiner takes Official Notice that turnbuckles have a threaded stud that is in threaded engagement with its adjustment housing. Turnbuckles are known in the art for tensioning cables. Thus, 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 fastener of Anson with a turnbuckle to allow adjustment of the tensile member.
Conclusion
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