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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation "the linking member” in line 16; Claim 13 recites the limitation “the linking member” in the third to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims; albeit it is clear, via the disclosure, the Applicant is referring to “the linkage member”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: “at least one anchoring device”. It is suggested that this limitation read as --at least one of the device--.
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: “the fastening means” in claims 1 and 16.
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 § 112
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.
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 16 is 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 the limitations "the frame” in lines 4 through 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitations "“the platform” in the 2nd to last line. “The platform” is indefinite, since it is unclear if it is referring to “a platform” introduced in line 3 of claim 16 or “a platform” introduced in line 2 of claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US Patent 9149670) in view of Featherstone et al. (US Patent 11192765) and Hermann (US Pub. App. 20100243783).
Walker (figs. 1-13) teaches a device (20) for anchoring an operator (46) to a height work structure, such as a platform (16) of an aerial bucket (10), the anchoring device (20) comprising:
A housing (24; see fig.’s 5 and 6), which forms an internal volume (86; inherent property of any housing) and which is provided with fastening means (66, 88 as part of 26 – since 112f is invoked, examiner notes that paragraph 0035 [in PGPUB] of the applicants specification describes the fastening means very broadly with unshown alternative options such as but not limited to “the housing is attached directly to the platform, with an adapted form of fastening means” – due to alternative options of fastening means not shown or clearly defining a scope, this applied art meets the narrowed scope required by the 112f invoking) for fastening the housing to the height work structure,
A linkage member (20), provided with a fastener (22) adapted to be hooked by a lanyard (72 with 78) attachable to the operator (see Fig. 4.), the linkage member being mounted on the housing so as to be movable along a direction of movement (the invisible axis of motion as defined by the position of Fig. 5 to that of Fig. 6 and vice versa) so as to be able to switch between:
A retracted configuration (See Fig. 5.) in which the fastener is at least partially arranged within the internal volume so that the housing renders the fastener inaccessible to prevent it being hooked by the lanyard, and
An extended configuration (See Fig. 6.) in which the fastener is at least partially arranged outside the internal volume so that the housing leaves the fastener accessible to be hooked by the lanyard and, once the fastener is hooked by the lanyard, the housing interferes with the lanyard to prevent the linking member from returning to the retracted configuration.
Walker fails to teach at least one position sensor, which is arranged within the internal volume and which detects the position of the linkage member relative to the housing in the direction of movement.
Featherstone teaches a similar anchoring device (22) for attaching an operator via lanyard to a platform (20) of an aerial bucket (10) and detecting attachment status of a lanyard (36) via sensor (34) and corresponding signal whilst preventing tampering or an erroneous state. Moreover, at least one position sensor (34) which detects the position of a lanyard linkage member (26) relative to the housing is taught (Column 4, Lines 37-67; Column 5, Lines 1-39; both the state, which is synonymous with status and position, and movement of the linkage member are detectable as such.).
Hermann teaches an anchoring device (16) attaching to a user via a lanyard (strap 26) that comprises at least one position sensor (Hall-effect sensor 46 and magnet 45, as a non-limiting example), which is arranged within the internal volume ([0067]) and which detects the position of the linkage member (16) relative to the housing (12a, b) in the direction of movement ([0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Walker’s device to incorporate a position sensor, in view of Featherstone, within the internal volume of its housing, in view of Hermann, in order to detect the position of the linkage member relative to said housing, as it would enable the detection and protection of a user from not being securely attached to a lofty structure, such as bucket on a boom vehicle, especially while the disclosed height work structure is in motion/operation.
Re. Claim 2, the modified Walker teaches the anchoring device according to claim 1, wherein the housing includes at least one wall which completely covers the fastener when the linkage member is in a retracted configuration (Fig. 5), based on Walker’s Figure 5 (86 has four walls which “completely [cover]” the disclosed fastener, when the latter is retracted, as much as the applicant’s at least one wall covers the claimed fastener.).
Re Claim 4, the modified Walker teaches the anchoring device according to claim 1, wherein the linkage member is translationally movable with respect to the housing along an axis corresponding to the direction of movement, based on Walker (Column 8, Lines 35-40).
Re Claim 5, the modified Walker teaches the anchoring device according to claim 1, wherein the anchoring device further comprises a resilient member which acts on the linkage member so as to bias the linkage member from the extended configuration to the retracted configuration, based on Walker’s spring (96) or actuator 26.
Re Claim 6, the modified Walker teaches the anchoring device according to claim 1, wherein the linkage member is provided with a gripping element which emerges outside the internal volume when the linkage member is in a retracted configuration, based on Hermann’s gripping element (18 with 20; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the modified Walker’s linkage member with a gripping element that emerges outside the internal volume when the linkage member is in the retracted configuration so as to stop the linkage member from being pulled into the internal volume and compressing the housed spring ([0083-84], [0161]/Claim 18).
Re Claim 9, the modified Walker teaches the anchoring device according to claim 1, wherein the anchoring device comprises an overtravel spring (240) which is interposed along the direction of movement between the linkage member and a stop mounted on the linkage member movably along the direction of movement, such that: - when the overtravel spring is not compressed, the linkage member is movable relative to the housing in the direction of movement between two extreme positions which are opposite each other, namely a first functional position, which is occupied by the linkage member in the retracted configuration, and a second functional position, which is occupied by the linkage member in the extended configuration and in which the stop is pressed against the housing in the direction of movement, and - when the overtravel spring is compressed, the linkage member in the extended configuration is moveable relative to the housing in the direction of movement between the second functional position and a dysfunctional position which is further from the first functional position than the second functional position, which overtravel spring is designed to be compressed when the linkage member in the second functional position is urged towards the dysfunctional position with a force above a predetermined threshold, based on Walker’s 96 and 92/94.
Re Claim 10, the modified Walker teaches the anchoring device according to claim 1, wherein the anchoring device further comprises a processing unit which: - is connected to said at least one position sensor so as to be able to process a position signal (inherent to a position sensor), which is emitted by said at least one position sensor and which is representative of the position of the linkage member detected by the position sensor, and - is adapted to determine from the position signal whether the linkage member is in the retracted or extended configuration, based on Featherstone’s processor (Claims 1, 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided for a processing unit on the modified Walker’s device, in view of Featherstone, as it is expressly necessary for a processor to exist in order to make use of an otherwise obsolete sensor and make sense of and decisions upon the signals it generates, namely by ascertaining whether a user-defined threshold value is sufficiently met by a received signal to determine the position status of an object, such as a linkage member.
Re Claim 12, the modified Walker teaches the anchoring device according to one of claim 10, wherein the processing unit is adapted to also process a presence signal, which is representative of the detection of the presence of an operator on the height work structure, based on Featherstone’s processor (Any processor is inherently capable of processing a presence signal. “Adapted to” denotes mere capability under the MPEP; thus, what the signal represents adds no patentable weight to a processor’s physical structure.).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adapt the modified Walker’s processing unit, in view of Featherstone, to process a presence signal (which should arise from physical/tangible structure, such as a dedicated sensor specifically provided to produce said signal), as it is a well-known design choice to adapt a processor to process one or more signals of varying origins/sources.
Re Claim 13, the modified Walker teaches the anchoring device according to claim 10, wherein the anchoring device further comprises an inertial sensor, which detects motions in the space of the housing and which emits a motion signal, representative of the motions detected by the inertial sensor, and wherein the processing unit is:- connected to the inertial sensor so that the motion signal can be processed, and- adapted to determine from the motion signal that the linking member is not in the extended configuration without the fastener hooked to the lanyard attached to a non-inanimate operator, based on Hermann’s inertial sensor/accelerometer ([0108], Fig. 14), motion signal (optional inputs 148), and processing unit (A microcontroller, seen in Fig. 14, inherently houses a (micro-) processor.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Walker to add an inertial sensor to produce motion signals, in view of Hermann, in order for a processor to determine that the linking member (understood as “linkage member” due to lack of antecedent basis) is not being actively pulled out of the recessed mode by the lanyard of a user moving around with sufficient force, as it would allow for localized audio-based alert signals (146, [0107]) and optional outputs (150) that wirelessly communicate proper anchoring status to ground control to ultimately ensure operator safety ([0109]).
Re Claim 14, the modified Walker teaches the anchoring device according to any one of claim 10, wherein the anchoring device comprises warning means, such as an audible and/or light-up alarm, which are connected to the processing unit and which are activated by the processing unit depending on the result of the processing steps carried out by the processing unit, based on Hermann’s optional audio annunciator (146) and indicator light 144, 24 or beacon circuit 160 ([0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Walker to add a warning means, such as an auditory or visual signal producer, namely an LED, alarm or speaker, in view of Hermann, in order for a processor to determine that the linking member (understood as “linkage member” due to lack of antecedent basis) is not being actively pulled out of the recessed mode by the lanyard of a user moving around with sufficient force, as it would allow for localized audio-based alert signals (146, [0107]) and optional outputs (150) that wirelessly communicate proper anchoring status to ground control to ultimately ensure operator safety ([0109]).
Re Claim 15, the modified Walker teaches the anchoring device according to claim 10, wherein the anchoring device comprises a wireless communication module, which is connected to the processing unit and which sends to a remote processing system data resulting from the processing steps implemented by the processing unit, based on Hermann’s radio transceiver/transmitter and antenna ([0109], [0133], [0128-0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Walker to incorporate a telecommunications module, in view of Hermann, in order for a processor to wirelessly communicate proper anchoring status to a remote processor operated by ground control to ultimately ensure operator safety ([0109]).
Re Claim 16, the modified Walker teaches, based on Walker’s Figure 1, an aerial bucket (10), comprising: - a ground support chassis (12), - a platform (16 or 52) adapted for at least one operator to stand on, - a lifting structure (14), which supports the platform and which is arranged on the frame (48) so as to be able to move the platform at least in height relative to the frame, and - at least one anchoring device, which is in accordance with claim 1 and whose housing is attached to the platform by said fastening means.
Re Claim 17, the modified Walker teaches the anchoring device, according to claim 9, wherein the anchoring device further comprises a processing unit which: - is connected to said at least one position sensor so as to be able to process a position signal, which is emitted by said at least one position sensor and which is representative of the position of the linkage member, detected by the position sensor, and - is adapted to determine from the position signal whether the linkage member is in the retracted or extended configuration, and wherein the processing unit is also adapted to, from the position signal, determine whether the position the linkage member occupies in the extended configuration is between the first and second functional positions, or between the second functional position and the dysfunctional position, based on Hermann’s anchoring device (16) and position sensor (Hall-effect sensor 46 and magnet 45).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7-8, and 11 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. Bernloehr et al. (US Patent 10029764) discloses a similar electromechanical anchor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROHAN O. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 - 5 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, 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.
/R.O.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights