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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 12/18/2024 has/have been taken into account.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,179,047. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims is encompassed by the claims of the patent.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,833,376. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims is encompassed by the claims of the patent.
Claims 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,833,376 in view of Lara (US 6,467,574).
The claims of the patent fail to explicitly recite the forces and steps which place the elements into the open, closed and standard positions. However, Lara teaches an open position (Lara: Fig. 7), a closed position (Lara: Fig. 8), and a standard position (Lara: Fig. 6) with the closed position being caused by a first force from falling, the open position being configured to be caused by compression of a button and a second force in a vertical direction, and the standard position allowing movement and preventing the cable from passing through (Lara: Col. 4, Ln. 5-48). 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 instant application with the positions from Lara, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a device which can be easily attached to a cable, adjustable along the cable and over its supporting lugs, and automatically move to a safety locked position in the event of a fall, thereby providing a device that is safe, simple to use, avoiding all risk of improper operation (Lara: Col. 4, Ln. 5-50).
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “the attachment portion is configured to be rotatable degrees relative to a vertical axis to an at least substantially horizontal position on either side of the body portion”. This should read “the attachment portion is configured to be rotatable 90 degrees relative to a vertical axis to an at least substantially horizontal position on either side of the body portion” or “the attachment portion is configured to be rotatable relative to a vertical axis to an at least substantially horizontal position on either side of the body portion” (emphasis added).
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 18 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).
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.
Claims 10-11 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the opposite arms of the attachment portion" in line(s) 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected claim 10.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chandler (US 2,324,361).
In regards to Claim 1, Chandler discloses a horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus, comprising: an attachment portion (Chandler: Fig. 1-3; 23, 24) rotatable about an axis of a moveable pin (Chandler: Fig. 1-3; 24) and connected to a body portion (Chandler: Fig. 1-3; 6, 7) by the moveable pin, the body portion comprising: a fixed jaw (Chandler: Fig. 1-3; 6) having a first moveable pin groove (Chandler: Fig. 1-3, 5; 20, 21, 30); and a moveable jaw (Chandler: Fig. 1-4; 22) having a second moveable pin groove, wherein a cable channel is defined by at least a portion of the fixed jaw and at least a portion of the moveable jaw (Chandler: Fig. 1); wherein at least a portion of the moveable pin is disposed within the first moveable pin groove and the second moveable pin groove of the fixed jaw and the moveable jaw such that a range of motion of the moveable pin is defined at least in part by the first moveable pin groove and the second moveable pin groove of the fixed jaw and the moveable jaw; wherein at least one of the first moveable pin groove and the second moveable pin groove comprising a vertical portion (Chandler: Fig. 3; 30) further comprises a first non-linear portion (Chandler: Fig. 3; 21).
In regards to Claim 2, Chandler discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 1, wherein the body portion (Chandler: Fig. 1-3; 6, 7) is configured to at least partially surround a portion of a cable so as to retain the portion of the cable within the cable channel.
In regards to Claim 3, Chandler discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 1, wherein the attachment portion (Chandler: Fig. 1-3; 23, 24) comprises an eyelet (Chandler: Fig. 1-3; 23).
In regards to Claim 4, Chandler discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 1, wherein the attachment portion (Chandler: Fig. 1-3; 23, 24) comprises the moveable pin (Chandler: Fig. 1-3; 24), the moveable pin being fixedly disposed between two opposite arms.
In regards to Claim 5, Chandler discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first moveable pin groove (Chandler: Fig. 1-3, 5; 20, 21, 30) and the second moveable pin groove comprising the vertical portion (Chandler: Fig. 3; 30) further comprises an S-shaped groove profile.
In regards to Claim 6, Chandler discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 5, wherein the vertical portion (Chandler: Fig. 3; 30) comprises an intermediate portion positioned in between the first non-linear portion (Chandler: Fig. 3; 21) and a second non-linear portions (Chandler: Annotated Fig. 3; P2).
In regards to Claim 8, Chandler discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 1, wherein the attachment portion (Chandler: Fig. 1-3; 23, 24) is configured to be rotatable degrees relative to a vertical axis to an at least substantially horizontal position on either side of the body portion (Chandler: Fig. 1-3; 6, 7).
In regards to Claim 13, Chandler discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 1, wherein the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus is configurable between an open position, a closed position, and a standard position (Chandler: Col. 2, Ln. 33-38).
In regards to Claim 18, Chandler discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 1, wherein the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus is configurable between an open position, a closed position, and a standard position (Chandler: Col. 2, Ln. 33-38).
In regards to Claim 19, Chandler discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 18, wherein the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus is configurable in the closed position based at least in part on a first force acting on the attachment portion in a falling direction (Chandler: Col. 1, Ln. 10-17; discloses weight locking the apparatus closed).
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 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler (US 2,324,361) in view of Ulbing (US 3,940,173).
In regards to Claim 14, Chandler discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 13, wherein the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus is configured to be placed in the open position based on a process comprising a vertical displacement of the moveable pin, the vertical displacement of the moveable pin resulting at least in part from a force applied to the attachment portion (Chandler: Col. 3, Ln. 2-10).
Chandler fails to disclose the apparatus being configurable in the open position based at least on a two-step operation comprising a compression of a button element. However, Ulbing teaches an apparatus being configurable in the open position based at least on a two-step operation comprising a compression of a button element (Ulbing: Fig. 1-4; 50).
Chandler and Ulbing are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. line attachments. 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 apparatus in Chandler with the button from Ulbing, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a biased latch mechanism that secures the apparatus in a closed position automatically (Ulbing: Col. 2, Ln. 62-67, thereby removing the need for separate locking fasteners.
In regards to Claim 20, Chandler discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 19, wherein the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus being configurable in the open position based at least on an operation comprising a second force applied to the attachment portion in a second direction different from the falling direction (Chandler: Col. 3, Ln. 2-10; Col. 3, Ln. 1-34).
Chandler fails to disclose the apparatus being configurable in the open position based at least on a two-step operation comprising a compression of a button element. However, Ulbing teaches an apparatus being configurable in the open position based at least on a two-step operation comprising a compression of a button element (Ulbing: Fig. 1-4; 50). [Note: See the rejection of claim 14 for motivation and/or rationale.]
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler (US 2,324,361) in view of Ulbing (US 3,940,173) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lecourt (US 6,293,600).
In regards to Claim 15, Chandler, as modified, teaches the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 14, but fails to disclose the attachment portion further comprises a bracket disposed between two opposite arms of the attachment portion.
However, Lecourt teaches an attachment portion (Lecourt: Fig. 1; 12) that further comprises a bracket (Lecourt: Annotated Fig. 1; B) disposed between two opposite arms of the attachment portion.
Chandler and Lecourt are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. line attachments. 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 attachment portion in Chandler with the bracket from Lecourt, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an attachment portion structure that encourages an attached element to move towards its distal end, thereby ensuring optimal response to an applied force (Lecourt: Col. 2, Ln. 9-16).
In regards to Claim 16, Chandler, as modified, teaches the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 15, wherein the bracket (Lecourt: Annotated Fig. 1; B) is configured to facilitate an execution of the two-step process by a user using a single hand.
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
754
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Chandler; Fig. 3
PNG
media_image2.png
616
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
II: Lecourt; Fig. 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631