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 .
The amendment filled 08/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 10-20, 27-28 and 30 have been cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 32-35 have been amended. Applicant added new claims 36-37. Claims 24-26 and 33 remain withdrawn, therefore, claims 1-9, 21-23, 29, 31-32 and 34-37 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
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 “barrier member removably connected at an end of the barrier member to the ... platform”, “disconnects the end of the barrier member from the platform” in claim 1, “a proximity sensor that is oriented in the receptacle close to the mounting surface of the end of the flexible member” in claim 34, “a proximity sensor that is oriented in the socket close to the mounting surface of the end of the flexible member” in claim 35, “the mounting surface” in claims 34 and 35 (as it pertains to the elected embodiment) (see note regarding “the mounting surface” in response to arguments below) and “the barrier member is removably connected at both ends of the barrier member” and “the flexible member is removably connected at both ends of the flexible member to the caution switch and the platform” for claims 36 and 37 respectively, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are also objected to for new matter issue regarding the introduction of numeral 39 in fig. 2 referring to the “the mounting surface”, since there is no support in the original disclosure to support that location for being the mounting surface.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 32 recites “wherein a receptacle or a socket is formed in the platform, and a receptacle or a socket is sized to receive”; how are the second “receptacle” and “socket” different than the firsts?
Claims 34 and 35 recite the limitation “the mounting surface”; there is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 34 and 35 recites “to detect whether the end of the flexible member is present and removed”; examiner recommends amending to “present or removed”, since the two states never occur together.
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). NOTE: that while both claims are not exact or verbatim, having the terms “socket” and “receptacle” carrying the same meaning and being interchangeable, also per what is recited in the claims, therefore, currently as recited claims 34 and 35 are considered substantial duplicate of each other.
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 and 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 325 recite the limitation “the mounting surface of the end of the flexible member”; this recitation raises new matter issue, since there is no support in the original disclosure that the flexible member or the end of the flexible member has a mounting surface. Note that the specification only mention the mounting surface once as belonging to the magnet i.e., “proximity sensor 38 is provided in the receptacle 36 adjacent to the mounting surface of the magnet 34” in paragraph [0020].
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.
Claims 1 and 36 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 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_image1.png
630
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
436
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
260
568
media_image3.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_image4.png
540
684
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
504
598
media_image5.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 1 and with respect to the limitations “removably connected at an end of the barrier member” and “disconnects the end of the barrier member”; it is submitted that, (a) on one hand since the modification above teaches the quick-disconnect mechanism of Bagnaro between the cord 27 and switch 26 of Cummings, hence would subsequently have the removable connection or the disconnect be at the end of the barrier member, and (b) on the other hand, sans teaching the quick-disconnect mechanism at the dead center of the cord, it would indeed be at “an end” since the claims does not require it be at a terminal end of the barrier member.
In regards to claim 36, it is submitted that it has been held that a mere duplication of parts, such as the duplication of the quick-disconnect mechanism of Bagnaro onto both ends of the barrier member, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. A duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1955). A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to duplicate the quick-disconnect mechanism of Bagnaro onto both ends of the barrier member for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., (A) to provide for safety precaution in case one of the disconnects malfunctions, and (B) where if the worker falls near one end or the other, the force from the fall would cause the disconnect to the nearest end which would further enhance the overall safety of the operation.
Claims 2-8, 21, 23, 31-32 and 34-35 and 37 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_image1.png
630
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
436
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
260
568
media_image3.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_image4.png
540
684
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
504
598
media_image5.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 2 and with respect to the limitations “a disconnection of an end of the flexible member”; it is submitted that, (a) on one hand since the modification above teaches the quick-disconnect mechanism of Bagnaro between the cord 27 and switch 26 of Cummings, hence would subsequently have the disconnection at an end of the flexible member, and (b) on the other hand, sans teaching the quick-disconnect mechanism at the dead center of the cord, it would indeed be at “an end” since the claims does not require it be at a terminal end of the flexible member.
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_image6.png
378
684
media_image6.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_image2.png
436
680
media_image2.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_image7.png
260
568
media_image7.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 Cummings as modified by Bagnaro teaches wherein a receptacle or a socket (female portion 24; Bagnaro) is formed in the platform (upon being taught onto platform of Cummings), and a receptacle or a socket (female portion 24; Bagnaro) is sized to receive the end of the flexible member (plunger 12; Bagnaro; 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 end of the flexible member 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 receptacle /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_image8.png
145
470
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 37, it is submitted that it has been held that a mere duplication of parts, such as the duplication of the quick-disconnect mechanism of Bagnaro onto both ends of the flexible member, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. A duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1955). A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to duplicate the quick-disconnect mechanism of Bagnaro onto both ends of the flexible member for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., (A) to provide for safety precaution in case one of the disconnects malfunctions, and (B) where if the worker falls near one end or the other, the force from the fall would cause the disconnect to the nearest end which would further enhance the overall safety of the operation.
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_image2.png
436
680
media_image2.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_image1.png
630
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
436
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
260
568
media_image3.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_image5.png
504
598
media_image5.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 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with regards to the drawing’s issue of “proximity sensor that is oriented in the receiving portion close to the mounting surface of the connector” not being illustrated that: “Claim 34 is amended to recite "proximity sensor that is oriented in the receptacle close to the mounting surface of the end of the flexible member". Claim 35 is amended to recite "proximity sensor that is oriented in the socket close to the mounting surface of the end of the flexible member". The proximity sensor 38 is illustrated in the Figures. The specification and Figure 2 are amended to add reference numeral 39 to the mounting surface. Therefore, the amendment to the claims, Figures, and specification overcomes the objection”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that the amendment to the claims does not cure the fact that there is no proximity sensor shown anywhere in the socket whether near, closer or far from any surface being it mounting surface or otherwise. Also related is applicant’s remark that “The specification and Figure 2 are amended to add reference numeral 39 to the mounting surface”, it is submitted that this introduction results in new matter issue regarding, since there is no support in the original disclosure to support that the mounting surface is the front facing surface of the receptacle/socket. Also note that reference line 39 in the newly submitted replacement drawings of fig. 2 is not clear since reference line 39 is pointing to the parting/connecting line between magnet 34 and proximity sensor 38.
Also, regarding the drawings objections and with regards to: the barrier member disconnecting from the platform; examiner presents that this issue remains since (a) the lack of illustration of “removably connected at both ends of the barrier member” results subsequently results in that there is also no illustration for the barrier member being removably connected disconnectable from the platform and (b) even if arguendo one were to assume/imagine disconnection protocol at both ends, per the disclosure, there does not appear to be a scenario of operation that would result in both ends disconnecting at the same time, since one would result in the barrier member hanging from the connected end and never experiencing force that would result in its disconnection from both ends, and hence never disconnecting the barrier member from the platform (since it will always be still connected at one end or the other).
Applicant argues “The proposed combination has no reasonable expectation of success because it renders Cummings et al., inoperable. Further, the proposed combination does not satisfy all of the claim limitations, because it would not actuate the caution switch as claimed because the tension is removed from a dislodged barrier member. There is no reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to render Cummings et al., inoperable by a combination with Bagnaro. Therefore, claim 1 is nonobvious over Cummings et al., in view of Bagnaro... The proposed combination fails to disclose a "predetermined force upon the barrier member dislodges the end of the barrier member from the platform and actuates the caution device." Cummings et al., requires a tension load to activate the switch 26. (Paragraph [0039]). Bagnaro is directed to an electrical cable 19 connected to a safety cable 600. The safety cable 600 does not include an end that dislodges, otherwise, it would not be operable for its intended purpose- safety. The combination of references fails to satisfy all of the claim limitations because both references maintain connections at both ends after actuation. Further, the proposed modification renders the references inoperable for their intended purposes ... Bagnaro is directed to a non-analogous art - oil drilling derricks. Bagnaro does not solve a similar problem”; 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. And regarding applicant’s comment that “Bagnaro is directed to an electrical cable 19 connected to a safety cable 600. The safety cable 600 does not include an end that dislodges”; examiner clarifies that he is not equating the cable 600 of Bagnaro to the flexible member, and that the predetermined force is provide by the worker in the Cummings reference (where Bagnaro is just the teachings reference), and that the force of the fall of the worker in Cummings is what is going to disconnect the socket/plug mechanism being taught and that applicant is arguing against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Finally, in response to applicant's argument that reference Bagnaro is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, reference Bagnaro is directed to safety equipment for a worker at an elevated height, which send an alarm upon detecting unsafe conditions, it is indeed analogous to reference Cummings, which is directed to the same problem, and would occur to a person of ordinary skill in the art to glean over to other references for worker’s safety at elevated heights.
In regards to claim 21 applicant previously challenged examiner’s Official Notice that spring-loaded ball bearings are well-known, to which examiner provide 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. And where examiner provided that: 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. Applicant further challenges that “Hicks is directed to a Tripod Adapter for Shooting Rests and Other Accessories, not mobile work platforms as claimed. Applicant maintains the argument that the state of the art of mobile work platforms fails to disclose quick-connect attachments; and therefore, spring-loaded ball bearings are not old and well-known in the art, absent any evidentiary evidence to support this argument”; examiner respectfully disagrees and provides that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Hence examiner reasserts that 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.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 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
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights