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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 10-20 and 30 have been cancelled. Claim 4 has been amended. Applicant added new claims 31-35. Newly submitted claim 33 directed to “an inductive sensor” 38, utilized in non-elected species A, hence claim 33 is also withdrawn. Claims 1-9, 21-23, 29, 31-32 and 34-35 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Limit switches 84 as submitted in paragraph [0030] on 10/13/2025 is not illustrated in the drawings.
Note that the specification states “an operator may inadvertently contact the control panel assembly 18” and “flexible member is connected to the caution switch to extend across the control panel and is spaced apart from the control panel”; While also claim 1 recites “barrier member removably connected to the caution switch and the platform to extend across the control panel and spaced apart from the control panel”, and claim 2 recites “expands the operator workspace ... the operator workspace is expanded to the platform perimeter upon a disconnection of the flexible member”; the objection arises from the fact that as shown in fig. 4 cable 74 i.e., barrier member or flexible member is sitting behind the controllers in the form of joysticks, hence contradicting the statements and recitations above e.g., how would disconnecting the plug/socket expand the operator workspace or how is it spaced apart from the control panel?
PNG
media_image1.png
572
1069
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also please note that the disclosure does not show or describe a manner with which the claimed switch in the socket would communicate to the control panel.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “limit switch is provided in the socket 68” specification paragraph [0029], “connector” and “receiving portion” claim 32 and “proximity sensor that is oriented in the receiving portion close to the mounting surface of the connector” claims 34-35 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 07/08/2025, 10/13/2025, 01/12/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
“38 is provided as a caution switch” in paragraph [0020] filed on 07/08/2025.
“limit switch 84 is provided as a caution switch” paragraphs [0029] and [0030] filed on 07/08/2025, later amendment on 01/12/2026 removed “switch 84” only from paragraph [0029].
“limit switch 82 is provided as a caution switch” paragraph [0029] filed on 07/08/2025
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “connector” and “receiving portion”.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is advised that should claim 34 be found allowable, claim 35 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 34-35 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.
Claims 34 and 35 recites “proximity sensor that is oriented in the receiving portion close to the mounting surface of the connector”; this recitation constitutes new matter, since the original disclosure does not have any support for “a connector”, or “a receiving portion”, and while as best understood those limitations can best be equated to the plug and socket, it is provided that the above language is neither stated in the specification nor illustrated in the drawings where it can be relied upon for support.
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 1-9, 21-23, 29, 31-32 and 34-35 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 1 recites “a predetermined force upon the barrier member disconnects the barrier member from the platform”; indefiniteness arises because per what is disclosed at least in elected figures 4-7, permanent attached of the barrier member at switch 82 makes that the barrier member never disconnects from the platform as recited. The same issue applies to claim 2 with regards to the recitation “the operator workspace is expanded to the platform perimeter upon a disconnection of the flexible member from the control panel”; where the flexible member never disconnects from the control panel even when the plug unplugs from the socket.
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings, US (2013/0313040) in view of Bagnaro, US (20130199854).
In regards to claim 1 Cummings discloses:
A mobile work platform assembly (fig. 2) comprising:
a platform (20 including floor 21; fig. 2) adapted to be mounted to a vehicle (11; fig. 1), and sized to receive an operator thereupon (abstract);
a control panel (23) supported upon the platform (as shown in fig. 2);
a caution switch (26) supported upon the platform (as shown in fig. 2) in electrical communication with the control panel to provide a signal to the control panel indicative of a caution event (“switch 26 is connected via electrical connector 31 and circuitry within the control 23 to the emergency stop 30 and is operable to cut-off the power supply from the emergency stop 30 which has the same effect as the emergency stop being activated”; as described in paragraph [0034] see highlighted excerpt below); and
a barrier member (trip cord 27) removably connected to the caution switch (as shown in fig. 2) and the platform to extend across the control panel (as shown in fig. 2) and spaced apart from the control panel (horizontal space between 27 and control panel 23; “the wire runs across the front of the control from which it is spaced by a suitable distance”; paragraph [0035] see highlighted excerpt below) so that a predetermined force upon the barrier member actuates the caution switch (force due to weight of the operator “falls or collapses within the basket”; paragraph [0035] see highlighted excerpt below).
PNG
media_image2.png
630
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
436
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
260
568
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1 Cummings does not disclose the predetermined force upon the barrier member disconnects the barrier member.
Bagnaro teaches predetermined force (“deliberately or when a force pulls on the lanyard or strap through hole 16”; paragraph [0028] see highlighted excerpt below) upon the barrier member (equivalent to lanyard or strap; paragraph [0028]) disconnects the barrier member (as described in paragraph [0029] see highlighted excerpt below).
PNG
media_image5.png
540
684
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
504
598
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the quick-disconnect mechanism of Bagnaro between the cord 27 and switch 26 of Cummings for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to prevent the tear of the cord if excessive force is applied e.g., if an overweight operator falls, and/or to establish a distinct disconnect in the line that would require an intentional conscious decision to reconnect after hazardous/unsafe conditions have been eradicated. Note that the disconnect lanyard or strap of Bagnaro also triggers an alarm system as described in paragraph [0029]; one of ordinary skill in the art would glean over to references of other alarm setting flexible cords especially for workers at elevated heights such as oil rig workers of reference Bagnaro.
Claims 2-8, 21, 23, 31-32 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings, US (2013/0313040) in view of Bagnaro, US (20130199854).
In regards to claim 2 Cummings discloses:
A mobile work platform assembly (fig. 2) comprising:
a platform (20 including floor 21; fig. 2) adapted to be mounted to a vehicle (11; fig. 1), and sized to receive an operator within a perimeter thereupon (abstract);
a control panel (23) supported upon the platform (as shown in fig. 2);
a caution switch (26) supported upon the platform (as shown in fig. 2) in electrical communication with the control panel to provide a signal to the control panel indicative of a caution event (“switch 26 is connected via electrical connector 31 and circuitry within the control 23 to the emergency stop 30 and is operable to cut-off the power supply from the emergency stop 30 which has the same effect as the emergency stop being activated”; as described in paragraph [0034] see highlighted excerpt below); and
a flexible member (trip cord 27) connected to the caution switch (as shown in fig. 2) to extend across the control panel and spaced apart from the control panel (horizontal space between 27 and control panel 23; “the wire runs across the front of the control from which it is spaced by a suitable distance”; paragraph [0035] see highlighted excerpt below) so that a predetermined force upon the flexible member actuates the caution switch (force due to weight of the operator “falls or collapses within the basket”; paragraph [0035] see highlighted excerpt below);
wherein the platform provides an operator workspace that is smaller than the platform perimeter (space bounded between railing 22 and cord 27 versus entirety of the perimeter of the platform including added space of control panel 23); wherein
the predetermined force upon the flexible member expands the operator workspace to the platform perimeter (up to and including enough force to trigger the switch depending on tension adjustment of tensioner 29; paragraph [0035]; as in the current invention; see indefiniteness above).
PNG
media_image2.png
630
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
436
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
260
568
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2 Cummings does not disclose the predetermined force upon the barrier member disconnects the barrier member.
Bagnaro teaches disconnection (as described in paragraph [0029] see highlighted excerpt below) of the flexible member (equivalent to lanyard or strap; paragraph [0028]) from the control panel in response to the predetermined force (“deliberately or when a force pulls on the lanyard or strap through hole 16”; paragraph [0028] see highlighted excerpt below).
PNG
media_image5.png
540
684
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
504
598
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the quick-disconnect mechanism of Bagnaro between the cord 27 and switch 26 of Cummings for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to prevent the tear of the cord if excessive force is applied e.g., if an overweight operator falls, and/or to establish a distinct disconnect in the line that would require an intentional conscious decision to reconnect after hazardous/unsafe conditions have been eradicated. Note that the disconnect lanyard or strap of Bagnaro also triggers an alarm system as described in paragraph [0029]; one of ordinary skill in the art would glean over to references of other alarm setting flexible cords especially for workers at elevated heights such as oil rig workers of reference Bagnaro. The modification by reference Bagnaro above subsequently teaches the operator workspace is expanded to the platform perimeter upon a disconnection of the flexible member (having cord 27 now as modified disconnecting from 26) from the control panel in response to the manual force (as modified by Bagnaro above).
In regards to claim 3 Bagnaro teaches a socket (14; fig. 1) connected to one of a first end of the flexible member (equivalent to 19) and the platform, with a bore (24) formed into the socket (as shown in fig. 1); and a plug (12) connected to the other of the first end of the flexible member (in the manner it is connected to lanyard 102) and the platform, sized to be received in the socket bore (fig. 1 and “receptacle 14 also has a second, female portion 24 that mates with a reduced diameter, male portion 64 of plunger 12”; as described in paragraph [0026]).
In regards to claim 4 Cummings and Bagnaro teaches the caution switch comprises a limit switch provided in the socket to detect the presence of the plug (as described in paragraph [0029] see highlighted excerpt below; Bagnaro).
PNG
media_image7.png
378
684
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5 Cummings and Bagnaro teaches the caution switch comprises a limit switch connected to a first end of the flexible member and the platform (as described in paragraph [0029] see highlighted excerpt above; Bagnaro).
In regards to claim 6 Cummings discloses the flexible member comprises a cable to minimize visual obstruction of the control panel (as shown in fig. 2).
In regards to claim 7 Cummings discloses an alarm (30) supported upon the platform in electrical communication with the control panel (23), wherein the control panel is programmed to initiate the alarm in response to receipt of the caution event signal (as described in paragraph [0034] see highlighted excerpt below).
PNG
media_image3.png
436
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 8 Cummings discloses a frame (22) extending from the platform and defining the platform perimeter (as shown in fig. 2); and a pair of brackets (28 and bracket carrying 26) extending from the frame into the platform perimeter (as shown in fig. 2), wherein the caution switch (26) is connected to one of the pair of brackets (as shown in fig. 2) and the flexible member is connected to the other of the pair of brackets (28).
In regards to claim 21 Cummings and Bagnaro does not disclose spring-loaded ball bearing. Examiner takes Official Notice that spring-loaded ball bearings are old and well-known in the art to secure a quick-connect attachment. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a spring-loaded ball bearing to secure the socket and plug of the quick connect of Bagnaro when no force is being applied to pull them apart for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to take advantage of a quick, easy and reliable connection and disconnection mechanism to engage and disengage the two halves of the fitting, allowing for fast, one-handed operation and reducing downtime.
In regards to claim 23 Cummings discloses the cable is pretensioned to permit limited flexibility of the cable upon receipt of a force that is less than the predetermined force (via tensioner 29 as described in paragraph [0035]; see excerpt below).
PNG
media_image8.png
260
568
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 31 Cummings as modified by Bagnaro teaches the caution switch (26; Cummings) cooperates with the flexible member (trip cord 27; Cummings) to detect whether an end of the flexible member is connected to, and disconnected from the platform (upon connection and disconnection of plug and socket of Bagnaro as taught above).
In regards to claim 32 (as best understood) Cummings as modified by Bagnaro teaches a receiving portion (female portion 24; Bagnaro) is formed in the platform (upon being taught onto platform of Cummings), and the receiving portion is sized to receive a connector (plunger 12; Bagnaro) on the end of the flexible member (per the teachings of the quick-disconnect mechanism of Bagnaro).
In regards to claims 34 and 35 Cummings as modified by Bagnaro teaches the caution switch includes a proximity sensor (as described in Bagnaro; “proximity technology is combined with switch 10 to relay information”; paragraph [0040]) that is oriented in the receiving portion close to the mounting surface of the connector to detect whether the connector is present and removed (as best understood in light of (a) new matter & non-illustrated limitations and (b) per the definition of “close” according to Close - definition of close by The Free Dictionary). If it was found that Bagnaro does not teach a proximity switch, examiner takes Official Notice that proximity switches are old and well-known in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have utilized a proximity switch in the plunger/socket to detect detachment for the predictable result/advantages of proximity switches i.e., provide reliable high precision detection would out contact which eliminates wear and tear.
PNG
media_image9.png
145
470
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings and Bagnaro as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Osika, US (4947009).
In regards to claim 22 Cummings and Bagnaro do not teach a three-position switch with a central neutral position.
Osika teaches a three-position switch (20) with a central neutral position (position of fig. 2) such that the limit switch is actuatable by the predetermined force applied upon the flexible member in multiple directions (right and left directions shown in figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the three-position switch taught by Osika onto the switch of Cummings for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to allow for the sensing of the movement of cord 27 in any direction where if a fall affected the cable in a direction other than direct toward the control panel, the switch would still be able to sense the fall and shut of movement to the platform for enhanced safety of the system.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings, US (2013/0313040) in view of Bagnaro, US (20130199854).
In regards to claim 9 Cummings discloses:
A land vehicle assembly (fig. 1) comprising:
a land vehicle (11);
a mobile work platform assembly (fig. 2) according to claim 2 (as detailed in rejection of claim 2 above);
wherein the land vehicle supports the platform (as shown in fig. 1) and is in electrical communication with the control panel (controls 23 for maneuvering basket 20; abstract), wherein the control panel is programmed to:
control at least one mobile operation of the land vehicle (controls 23 for maneuvering basket 20; abstract), and
discontinue the at least one mobile operation of the land vehicle in response to receipt of the caution event signal (“switch 26 is connected via electrical connector 31 and circuitry within the control 23 to the emergency stop 30 and is operable to cut-off the power supply from the emergency stop 30 which has the same effect as the emergency stop being activated”; as described in paragraph [0034] see highlighted excerpt below).
PNG
media_image3.png
436
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings, US (2013/0313040) in view of Bagnaro, US (20130199854).
In regards to claim 29 Cummings discloses:
A mobile work platform assembly (fig. 2) comprising:
a platform (20 including floor 21; fig. 2) suitable for installation on a vehicle (11; fig. 1), the size of which is set to receive an operator thereon (abstract);
a control panel (23) supported on the platform (as shown in fig. 2);
a caution switch (26) supported on the platform (as shown in fig. 2), the caution switch being in electrical communication with the control panel to provide a signal indicating a caution event to the control panel (“switch 26 is connected via electrical connector 31 and circuitry within the control 23 to the emergency stop 30 and is operable to cut-off the power supply from the emergency stop 30 which has the same effect as the emergency stop being activated”; as described in paragraph [0034] see highlighted excerpt below);
a blocking member (trip cord 27) connected to the caution switch (as shown in fig. 2) to extend across the control panel (as shown in fig. 2) and be spaced apart from the control panel (horizontal space between 27 and control panel 23; “the wire runs across the front of the control from which it is spaced by a suitable distance”; paragraph [0035] see highlighted excerpt below) so that a predetermined force on the blocking member activates the caution switch (force due to weight of the operator “falls or collapses within the basket”; paragraph [0035] see highlighted excerpt below);
PNG
media_image2.png
630
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
436
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
260
568
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 29 Cummings does not disclose a socket connected to one of the first end of the blocking member and the platform, and having a hole formed in the socket; a plug connected to the other of the first end of the blocking member and the platform, and sized to be received in the hole of the socket; wherein a recess is formed in the plug.
Bagnaro teaches a socket (14; fig. 1) connected to one of a first end of the blocking member (equivalent to 19) and the platform, and having a hole (24) formed in the socket (as shown in fig. 1); a plug (12) connected to the other of the first end of the blocking member (in the manner it is connected to lanyard 102) and the platform, and sized to be received in the hole of the socket (fig. 1 and “receptacle 14 also has a second, female portion 24 that mates with a reduced diameter, male portion 64 of plunger 12”; as described in paragraph [0026]); wherein a recess (recesses holding rings 58, 60) is formed in the plug.
PNG
media_image6.png
504
598
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the quick-disconnect mechanism of Bagnaro between the cord 27 and switch 26 of Cummings for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to prevent the tear of the cord if excessive force is applied e.g., if an overweight operator falls, and/or to establish a distinct disconnect in the line that would require an intentional conscious decision to reconnect after hazardous/unsafe conditions have been eradicated. Note that the disconnect lanyard or strap of Bagnaro also triggers an alarm system as described in paragraph [0029]; one of ordinary skill in the art would glean over to references of other alarm setting flexible cords especially for workers at elevated heights such as oil rig workers of reference Bagnaro.
In regards to claim 29 Cummings and Bagnaro do not teach spring-loaded ball bearing. Examiner takes Official Notice that spring-loaded ball bearings are old and well-known in the art to secure a quick-connect attachment. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a spring-loaded ball bearing to secure the socket and plug of the quick connect of Bagnaro when no force is being applied to pull them apart for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to take advantage of a quick, easy and reliable connection and disconnection mechanism to engage and disengage the two halves of the fitting, allowing for fast, one-handed operation and reducing downtime.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “according to Cummings, the switch 26 is activated by a tension load to the cord 27. (Paragraph [0039]). A quick-disconnect between the cord 27 and the switch 26 as proposed, would result in a disconnection of the tension load, which would not activate the switch 26 of Cummings, nor maintain the activation of the switch 26 of Cummings. The proposed combination has no reasonable expectation of success because it renders Cummings inoperable”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that: Cummings discloses “The tension load is applied by the tensioned trip wire or cord 27 which extends across the front of the control 23 and is fixed to a support 28 mounted on the safety barrier 22 on the far side of the control 23. The cord 27 may be held in tension by an adjustable tensioner 29. The trip cord 27 must be positioned so as to allow normal operation of the control 23 but be tripped by an operator in the event that the operator is disabled and falls or collapses within the basket” in paragraph [0035], and further discloses “the auxiliary switch 26 is mounted on or within the control panel 23 and is operated by an alternative switch activation means 160. The contacts C1, C2 within the auxiliary switch 26 are not operated by a tension wire but are operated via a solenoid 27A (shown in chain dotted outline in FIG. 3) and the activation device 160 sends a signal to activate the solenoid” in paragraph [0042]; hence the crux/purpose of the invention of Cummings is for the normal operation of the aerial lift to be interrupted when “tripped by an operator in the event that the operator is disabled and falls or collapses within the basket”. Further on, this is accomplished by having contacts C1 and C2 operated via a solenoid 27A (as described in paragraph [0042]); hence as a person of ordinary skill in the art utilize the plug and socket arrangement of Bagnaro between the cord 27 and switch 26 of Cummings, it would subsequently result in that the contacts C1 and C2 being activated by the signal resulting from the disconnect i.e., , due to the separation which causes switch to indicate an alarm as described in paragraph [0029] Bagnaro rather than the tension wire. Cummings having “a” solution to operate/activate the contacts to indicate an alarm does not mean that having an alternative/substitute solution would destroy reference Cummings or render it inoperable. To reiterate, the invention of Cummings would operate perfectly fine when utilizing a different trigger mechanism. Response applies to similar arguments against claims 2, 9 and 29.
In regards to claim 21 applicant challenges examiner’s Official Notice that spring-loaded ball bearings are well-known. Examiner provides reference Hicks, US (2012/0294672) which teaches quick-connect stem 30 (equated to plug) has a plurality of spring-loaded ball bearings 32 that fit into the center opening 54 (equated to opening in socket); in paragraph [0032] and illustrates in figures 2 and 3A. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize spring loaded ball bearing to secure the connection between the plug and socket.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to PTO-892 form for list of cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
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.
/S.M.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634