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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1: claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BAILLARGEON (WO Patent No. 2012109444 A2).
In re claim 1, BAILLARGEON teaches A process for enabling an industrial vehicle (Para [0077]: “The controller 178 and/or the interface monitoring unit 100 may further override of control of the lift, preventing the movement of the lift until a lanyard connection signal has been detected.”), the process comprising:
determining, by an industrial vehicle (Para [0077]: “The controller 178 and interface monitoring unit 100 may be mounted near the control panel 166 within or along the aerialift basket 152…”), whether the industrial vehicle includes a lanyard that is associated to the industrial vehicle (Para [0072]: “A safety detection sensor 110 may be sewn or affixed within the safety lanyard 156 or be incorporated to the anchor point 164 and/or the harness ring 159 and optionally be wired directly to the boom control panel switches for up movement. A connection of the lanyard 156 by the operator to the anchor point 164 and/or a connection of the lanyard 156 to the harness ring 159 must be detected by the attachment sensor 110 or an error warning will be sent to the interface monitoring unit 100.”);
receiving, on the industrial vehicle (Para [0063]: “As will be discussed in greater detail below the interface monitoring unit 100 provides for data input from an operator or administrator… The unit 100 may have one of an LCD, LED or other display screen 146 with touch screen input or alternatively and/or in addition a keyboard 148 for data entry.”), login credentials from an operator (Para [0094]: “Operator name, vehicle or lift device job information… may be determined from data input by the operator…”);
determining, if the industrial vehicle includes the lanyard (Para [0072]: “A connection of the lanyard 156 by the operator to the anchor point 164… must be detected by the attachment sensor 110 or an error warning will be sent to the interface monitoring unit 100.”), that the lanyard is secured after the lanyard was not secured (Para [0080]: “Upon disconnection of the switch 157 a signal is also transmitted to… the interface monitoring unit 100… Audible and/or visual warnings may also be issued to instruct the operator to reattach the safety lanyard 156.”); and
enabling the industrial vehicle after receiving the login credentials (Para [0076]: “…data indicating the identification of the operator, date, time… may be logged each time operation of the lift is attempted without an attachment.”) and determining that the lanyard is secured after the lanyard was not secured (Para [0080]: “A signal may also be sent to the boom controls 166 to halt movement of the boom. Audible and/or visual warnings may also be issued to instruct the operator to reattach the safety lanyard 156.”).
In re claim 3, BAILLARGEON teaches wherein determining, if the industrial vehicle includes the lanyard, that the lanyard is secured after the lanyard was not secured comprises detecting an edge on a signal from the lanyard, wherein the signal indicates a secured state of the lanyard (Para [0080]: “Upon disconnection of the switch 157 a signal is also transmitted to… the interface monitoring unit 100… Audible and/or visual warnings may also be issued to instruct the operator to reattach the safety lanyard 156.”).
In re claim 4, BAILLARGEON teaches wherein determining, if the industrial vehicle includes the lanyard, that the lanyard is secured after the lanyard was not secured comprises receiving a status message indicating that the lanyard is in an unsecured state (Para [0080]: “…the interface monitoring unit 100 may… receiving the detached signal…”) and then receiving a status message indicating that the lanyard is in a secured state (Para [0074]: “A further transmission is made… to the interface monitoring unit 100 signaling an attachment of the safety lanyard 156…”).
In re claim 5, BAILLARGEON teaches wherein determining that the lanyard is secured after the lanyard was not secured occurs after receiving the login credentials from the operator (Para [0076]: “A secure detected connection of the safety lanyard 156 to the anchor point 164 and/or to the safety harness 158 is an important feature of the present invention, and various alternative approaches for this detection are contemplated within the scope of this invention. Each of the further embodiments as described below provides communication from the safety lanyard detector 1 10 to the interface monitoring unit 100 …data indicating the identification of the operator, date, time… may be logged each time operation of the lift is attempted without an attachment.”).
In re claim 8, BAILLARGEON teaches further comprising:
keeping the industrial vehicle enabled until the operator logs out or unsecures the lanyard (Para [0080]: “…the interface monitoring unit 100 may after receiving the detached signal determine if the boom is in a raised position… A signal may also be sent to the boom controls 166 to halt movement of the boom.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAILLARGEON (WO Patent No. 2012109444 A2), in view of Porter (US Patent No. 20230303375 A1).
In re claim 2, BAILLARGEON teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above and further teaches wherein determining whether the industrial vehicle includes a lanyard that is associated to the industrial vehicle comprises:
receiving a wireless status message from the lanyard (Para [0072]: “…the safety warning monitoring unit 100 may communicate with the detection sensor 110 that may be incorporated in the harness 158 and/or safety lanyard 156 using wireless transmission to provide for the operator 154 having the detection sensor and monitor on at all times as described below.”).
BAILLARGEON fails to teach wherein the wireless status message includes identification data of the lanyard.
However, Porter teaches wherein the wireless status message includes identification data of the lanyard (Para [0007]: “The system can include a control unit co-located with the material handling vehicle and configured to receive via wireless communication an identification from the PPE device, communicate the identification to a server, receive an operating routine for the identified PPE device from the server in response to the identification, receive via wireless communication a first operational data from the PPE device, and transmit a limiting instruction to a subsystem of the material handling vehicle according to the operating routine.”).
Therefore, 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 BAILLARGEON to incorporate the teachings of Porter to provide wherein the wireless status message includes identification data of the lanyard with the WARNING AND MESSAGE DELIVERY AND LOGGING SYSTEM UTILIZABLE IN THE MONITORING OF FALL ARRESTING AND PREVENTION DEVICES AND METHOD OF SAME of BAILLARGEON. Doing so enables a limiting instruction to a subsystem of the material handling vehicle according to the operating routine for the PPE, as recognized by Porter (Para [0007]).
In re claim 6, BAILLARGEON teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above and further teaches wherein determining that the lanyard is secured after the lanyard was not secured occurs within a predetermined time period (Para [0020]: “The system would further record the time, date and number of times the safety lanyard was attached and detached from the system and the time, date and number of times the lift was operated in an upward and/or downward movement. This collection of data may then be evaluated and cross-checked to determine if the attachment and detachment of the safety lanyard coincides with the operation of the lift. For example if the lift is operated up and down five times over a two day time period, but the safety lanyard has been detected as attached once, then this data may indicate safety lanyard detection device has been circumvented in some manner, thereby providing an opportunity to reinforce training and/or mete out penalties to a repeatedly offending operator.”).
BAILLARGEON fails to teach before receiving the login credentials from the operator.
However, Porter teaches before receiving the login credentials from the operator (Para [0067]: “In addition, in various examples, during use, various events and maneuvers of the MHV 10 by an operator 30 can be logged and communicated to the remote server 122 for data analytics and reporting. In some embodiments, the telematic controller 40 may identify operators 30 by badge scanning, PIN number, or the like, or via communication with the MHV 10 for login credentials. The use of the telematic controller 40 may begin at the start of the shift. The telematic controller 40 may communicate operator 30 identification to the remote server 122 along with other collected data (e.g., telemetric data) regarding use of the MHV 10 by the operator 30.”).
Therefore, 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 BAILLARGEON to incorporate the teachings of Porter to provide before receiving the login credentials from the operator with the WARNING AND MESSAGE DELIVERY AND LOGGING SYSTEM UTILIZABLE IN THE MONITORING OF FALL ARRESTING AND PREVENTION DEVICES AND METHOD OF SAME of BAILLARGEON. Doing so enables various events and maneuvers of the MHV 10 by an operator 30 to be logged during use and communicated to the remote server 122 for data analytics and reporting, as recognized by Porter (Para [0067]).
Process claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as process claim 5 and process claim 6 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150217981 A1 teaches In further embodiments, the receiver warning device integrates with the interface monitoring unit that is described in pending U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0217091 and with other safety devices. The interface monitoring unit provides a hard wired or wireless receiver that detects operational states and warnings from safety devices and transmits this information to the operator. The interface monitoring unit further includes data logging features that track telematics data specific to the operator and the aerial lift device including the time and operational steps taken before, during and after the failure to detect the connection of the safety lanyard or other fault conditions. This information is stored and transmitted to supervisors and others to monitor and track fault conditions and safety violations in the operation of an aerial lift device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES EDWARD MUNION whose telephone number is (571)270-0437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/JAMES E MUNION/Examiner, Art Unit 2688 09/03/2026
Prosecution Insights