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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 is recited as depending from itself.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the plug shaft" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
Claims 2-6, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fife et al. (2017/0368387) hereinafter Fife, in view of Renton et al. (2010/0282541) hereinafter Renton.
Fife discloses:
Claim 2: An automatic descent control device comprising;
a housing (Fig. 3; 307);
a line (Fig. 1; 104) housed at least partially within the housing and configured to be attached to a load (Fig. 1; 102);
a line extension/retraction system coupled to the line (Para. [0015]), the line extension/retraction system having a braking system (Fig. 1; 180) and configured to retract the line within the housing when the line in not loaded and extend the line from the housing and unwind about the shaft when the line is loaded (Para. [0025]); and
an electronic monitoring system (Fig. 2; 108) comprising:
a controller (Para. [0028]) having a printed circuit board (Para. [0035]) with memory (Fig. 2; 220, Para. [0029]), a processor (Fig. 2; 210), and at least one sensor (Fig. 2; 160), wherein the at least one sensor is configured to measure rotation and direction (Para. [0022]), and the controller is configured to record the measured rotation and direction data (Para. [0023]).
Fife discloses a self-retracting lanyard device but fails to disclose any specifics regarding the mechanical workings of the device, such as a shaft or reluctor wheel.
However, Renton discloses a shaft (Fig. 3; 101) and a reluctor wheel (Fig. 2; 103).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the self-retracting lanyard device of Fife to include the shaft and reluctor wheel, as taught by Renton, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide an attachment and control means for the line.
Claim 3: Fife and Renton disclose the automatic descent control device of claim 2, wherein the printed circuit board (Fife - Fig. 3; located at 210, Para. [0035]) and the reluctor wheel (Renton - Fig. 2; 103) are axially adjacent one another along the rotation axis (since the printed circuit board of Fife is centrally located where the shaft of Renton is located, once combined they would be axially adjacent).
Claim 4: Fife discloses the automatic descent control device of claim 2, wherein the electronic monitoring system is disposed exterior to the housing (Fig. 1; 108 is located to the exterior of 307).
Claim 5: Fife discloses the automatic descent control device of claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the electronic monitoring system further comprises a plug shaft coupled to the shaft and rotatable around the rotation axis, the reluctor wheel mounted on the plug shaft.
However, Renton discloses a plug shaft coupled to the shaft and rotatable around the rotation axis, the reluctor wheel mounted on the plug shaft (Fig. 3; 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify self-retracting lanyard device of Fife to include the plug shaft, as taught by Renton, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would secure the shaft in place.
Claim 6: Fife discloses the automatic descent control device of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the electronic monitoring system further comprises a collar coupled to the plug shaft, the reluctor wheel coupled directly to the collar.
However, Renton discloses a collar (Fig. 3; 106) coupled to the plug shaft (Fig. 3; 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the self-retracting lanyard device of Fife to include the collar, as taught by Renton, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would minimize friction effects.
Claim 12: An electronic monitoring system for an auto-belay device a line (Para. [0015]) configured to selectively retract and wind about the shaft when not loaded and extend and unwind about the shaft when loaded (Para. [0025]), the electronic monitoring system comprising (Note: the preamble is written as functional language indicating that the electronic monitoring system is for an auto-belay device. The device of Fife is capable of operating as described):
a controller (Para. [0028]) having a printed circuit board (Para. [0035]) with memory (Fig. 2; 220, Para. [0029]), a processor (Fig. 2; 210), and at least one sensor (Fig. 2; 160), wherein the at least one sensor is configured to measure rotation and direction (Para. [0022]) and the controller is configured to record the measured rotation and direction data (Para. [0023]).
Fife discloses a self-retracting lanyard device but fails to disclose any specifics regarding the mechanical workings of the device, such as a shaft, reluctor wheel or plug shaft.
However, Renton discloses a shaft (Fig. 3; 101), a reluctor wheel (Fig. 2; 103), and a plug shaft coupled to the shaft and rotatable around the rotation axis, the reluctor wheel mounted on the plug shaft (Fig. 3; 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the self-retracting lanyard device of Fife to include the shaft, reluctor wheel and plug shaft, as taught by Renton, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide an attachment and control means for the line and would secure the shaft in place.
Claim 13: Fife and Renton disclose the electronic monitoring system of claim 12, wherein the printed circuit board (Fife - Fig. 3; located at 210, Para. [0035]) and the reluctor wheel (Renton - Fig. 2; 103) are axially adjacent one another along the rotation axis (since the printed circuit board of Fife is centrally located where the shaft of Renton is located, once combined they would be axially adjacent).
Claim 14: Fife discloses the electronic monitoring system of claim 12, but fails to disclose further comprising a collar coupled to the plug shaft, the reluctor wheel coupled directly to the collar.
However, Renton discloses a collar (Fig. 3; 106) coupled to the plug shaft (Fig. 3; 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the self-retracting lanyard device of Fife to include the collar, as taught by Renton, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would minimize friction effects.
Claim 16: Fife discloses the electronic monitoring system of claim 12, wherein the controller further includes wireless communication for sending out the recorded data (Para. [0039, 0041]).
Claims 7, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fife et al. (2017/0368387) hereinafter Fife, in view of Renton et al. (2010/0282541) hereinafter Renton, and further in view of Butzmann (2008/0246465).
Claims 7 and 15: Fife discloses the automatic descent control device of claims 2 and 12, but fails to disclose wherein the reluctor wheel is ferromagnetic and the at least one sensor is a magnetic sensor.
However, Butzmann discloses a ferromagnetic wheel (Fig. 2; 12, Para. [0044]) and a magnetic sensor (Fig. 2; 10/11, Para. [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic descent control device of Fife to make the wheel ferromagnetic and the sensor magnetic, as taught by Butzmann, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow monitoring of the speed of the wheel (Para. [0039-0040]).
Claim 17: Fife discloses a method of operating an auto-belay device comprising:
retracting a line (Fig. 1; 104), via a line extension/retraction system (Para. [0015]), so as to wind about a shaft rotatably supported within a housing (Fig. 3; 307) when the line is not loaded (Para. [0025]);
extending the line, via a braking system (Fig. 1; 180) of the line extension/retractions system, so as to unwind about the shaft when the line is loaded (Para. [0025]);
and wherein a controller (Para. [0028]) having a printed circuit board (Para. [0035]) with memory, (Fig. 2; 220, Para. [0029]), a processor (Fig. 2; 210), and at least one sensor (Fig. 2; 160), and the at least one sensor measures rotation and direction (Para. [0022]), and recording the measured rotation and direction data via the controller (Para. [0029]).
Fife discloses a self-retracting lanyard device but fails to disclose any specifics regarding the mechanical workings of the device, such as a shaft or reluctor wheel, and measuring rotational speed and direction of a reluctor wheel, wherein the reluctor wheel is coupled to the shaft and configured to rotate with the shaft during winding and unwinding of the line.
However, Renton discloses a shaft (Fig. 3; 101) and a reluctor wheel (Fig. 2; 103).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the self-retracting lanyard device of Fife to include the shaft and reluctor wheel, as taught by Renton, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide an attachment and control means for the line.
Additionally, Fife fails to disclose measuring rotational speed.
However, Butzmann discloses measuring rotational speed (Para. [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fife to include the ability to measure the rotational speed, as taught by Butzmann, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide information on how fast the line is being paid out or retracted.
Thus, in combination Fife, Renton and Butzmann disclose measuring rotational speed and direction, as taught by Butzmann, of the reluctor wheel, of Renton, wherein the reluctor wheel is coupled to the shaft, of Renton, and configured to rotate with the shaft during winding and unwinding of the line, of Fife; and
recording the measured rotation and direction data of the reluctor wheel via the controller during the retraction and extension of the line, of Fife.
Claim 18: Fife discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising sending, via the controller, the recorded data to a device remote from the auto-belay device (Para. [0039]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fife et al. (2017/0368387) hereinafter Fife, in view of Renton et al. (2010/0282541) hereinafter Renton, and further in view of Blomberg (2011/0147125).
Claim 8: Fife discloses the automatic descent control device of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the braking system is an eddy current braking system.
However, Blomberg discloses an eddy current braking system (Para. [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic descent control device of Fife to include the eddy braking system, as taught by Blomberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a means for triggering braking (Para. [0035]).
Claim 9: Fife discloses the automatic descent control device of claim 8, wherein the electronic monitoring system further comprises a second braking system (Fig. 1; 180) configured to lock the line in position relative to the housing, and wherein the second braking system is an electromechanical braking system (Para. [0025]).
Claim 10: Fife discloses the automatic descent control device of claim 9, further comprising at least one remote device in communication with the controller (Para. [0039, 0041]), the at least one remote device configured to be mounted on a climbing wall, and when actuated, engage or disengage the electromechanical braking system (Para. [0039, 0041]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fife et al. (2017/0368387) hereinafter Fife, in view of Renton et al. (2010/0282541) hereinafter Renton, and further in view of Blomberg (2011/0147125) still further in view of Tsang (2017/0028285).
Claim 11: Fife discloses the automatic descent control device of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one remote device is shaped and sized as a climbing hold.
However, Tsang discloses a remote device shaped and sized as a climbing hold (Fig. 1; Para. [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote device of Fife to be located in the climbing hold, as taught by Tsang with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow data to be generated and sent based on interaction with the climbing hold (Para. [0041]).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fife et al. (2017/0368387) hereinafter Fife, in view of Renton et al. (2010/0282541) hereinafter Renton, and further in view of Butzmann (2008/0246465), and still further in view of Blackford et al. (2020/0047006) hereinafter Blackford.
Claim 19: Fife discloses the method of claim 17, but fails to disclose wherein based on the recorded data, a number of climbs by a user of the auto-belay device is determined.
However, Blackford discloses recording the number of climbs by a user (Para. [0173]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Fife to record the number of climbs by a user, as taught by Blackford, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide data on device health and aide in determining the need for preventative maintenance (Para. [0148]).
Claim 20: Blackford discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the determined number of climbs also includes a frequency of use of the auto-belay over a predetermined time period (Para. [0173]).
Claim 21: Fife discloses the method of claim 17, but fails to disclose wherein based on the recorded data, a number of line inspections of the auto-belay device is determined.
However, Blackford discloses recording the number of line inspections (Para. [0173]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Fife to record the number of line inspections, as taught by Blackford, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide data on device health and aide in determining the need for preventative maintenance (Para. [0148]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen M. McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-9139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kathleen M. McFarland/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Kathleen M. McFarland
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights