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. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 12/18/2024 has/have been taken into account.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 05/18/2026, the following has occurred: Claims 1-2, 8, 10-11, 13 and 18-20 have been amended; No claims have been canceled; No claims have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that: “To the extend these characterizations can be considered applicable to claim 1, as amended, Applicant submits that the body 6 of Chandler (characterized as being "a fixed jaw") and the member 7 of Chandler (characterized as being "a movable jaw") do not provide a "cable channel gap" therebetween to receive a cable therethrough. Instead, the body 6 of Chandler and the member 7 of Chandler is configured to receive "an angle iron" having a flange 17 and another flange 19 therebetween. See e.g., Chandler Figures 1-3 reproduced below.” – The examiner respectfully disagrees. Chandler discloses a channel configured to receive a cable as that there is nothing preventing a cable from being inserted into the channel of Chandler. Also, as the annotated figure shows, Chandler also has a cable channel gap adjacent to the channel that is between the jaws and is configurable between an open position and a closed position where the gap is reduced. As such, Chandler reads on the claims.
Additionally, the amendment has overcome the objections and 112 rejections set forth in the previous action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 8-11, and 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 5-7 and 12 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 5 recites the limitation "the vertical portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "respective vertical portions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected claim 5.
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 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 (Chandler: Annotated Fig. 1; C) 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 the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus is configurable between an open position (Chandler: Fig. 3) having a cable channel gap (Chandler: Annotated Fig. 1, 3; G) defined adjacent the cable channel between the fixed jaw and the moveable jaw to receive a cable therethrough and a closed position (Chandler: Fig. 1) defined at least in part by the moveable jaw rotating about a fixed pin toward the fixed jaw to reduce the cable channel gap.
In regards to Claim 2, Chandler discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 1, wherein both of the first moveable pin groove and the second moveable pin groove each include a vertical portion (Chandler: Fig. 3; 30) and a first non-linear portion (Chandler: Fig. 3; 21).
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 90 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 the open position, the 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 the open position, the closed position, and a standard position (Chandler: Col. 2, Ln. 33-38); 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).
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lara (US Patent No. 6,467,574).
In regards to Claim 1, Lara discloses a horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus, comprising: an attachment portion (Lara: Fig. 1-5; 20-21) rotatable about an axis of a moveable pin (Lara: Fig. 1-5; 25) and connected to a body portion by the moveable pin, the body portion comprising: a fixed jaw (Lara: Fig. 1-5; 3) having a first moveable pin groove (Lara: Fig. 5-8; 27); and a moveable jaw (Lara: Fig. 1-8; 5) having a second moveable pin groove (Lara: Fig. 5-8; 26), wherein a cable channel (Lara: Fig. 1-2, 6; 2) is defined by at least a portion of the fixed jaw and at least a portion of the moveable jaw; 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 the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus is configurable between an open position (Lara: Fig. 7) having a cable channel gap defined adjacent the cable channel between the fixed jaw and the moveable jaw to receive a cable therethrough and a closed position (Lara: Fig. 8) defined at least in part by the moveable jaw rotating about a fixed pin toward the fixed jaw to reduce the cable channel gap.
In regards to Claim 3, Lara discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 1, wherein the attachment portion (Lara: Fig. 1-5; 20-21) comprises an eyelet (Lara: Fig. 1-5, Annotated Fig. 2; E).
In regards to Claim 4, Lara discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 1, wherein the attachment portion (Lara: Fig. 1-5; 20-21) comprises the moveable pin (Lara: Fig. 1-5; 25), the moveable pin being fixedly disposed between two opposite arms.
In regards to Claim 8, Lara discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 1, wherein the attachment portion (Lara: Fig. 1-5; 20-21) 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 (Lara: Fig. 1-2; 1).
In regards to Claim 13, Lara discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 1, wherein the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus is configurable between the open position (Lara: Fig. 7), the closed position (Lara: Fig. 8), and a standard position (Lara: Fig. 6).
In regards to Claim 14, Lara 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 two-step process comprising a compression of a button element (Lara: Fig. 1-5; 11) and 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 (Lara: Col. 4, Ln. 25-40).
In regards to Claim 15, Lara discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 14, wherein the attachment portion further comprises a bracket (Lara: Annotated Fig. 2; B) disposed between two opposite arms of the attachment portion.
In regards to Claim 16, Lara discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 15, wherein the bracket (Lara: Annotated Fig. 2; B) is configured to facilitate an execution of the two-step process by a user using a single hand.
In regards to Claim 17, Lara discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 16, wherein the bracket (Lara: Annotated Fig. 2; B) is positioned so as to at least partially block the button element (Lara: Fig. 1-5; 11) from unwarranted user interaction when the attachment portion is rotated to an at least substantially horizontal position.
In regards to Claim 18, Lara discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 1, wherein the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus is configurable between the open position (Lara: Fig. 7), the closed position (Lara: Fig. 8), and a standard position (Lara: Fig. 6), 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.
In regards to Claim 19, Lara discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 18, wherein the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus being configurable in the open position based at least on a two-step operation comprising a compression of a button element (Lara: Fig. 1-5; 11) and a second force applied to the attachment portion in a second direction different from the falling direction (Lara: Col. 4, Ln. 25-40).
In regards to Claim 20, Lara discloses the horizontal lifeline shuttle apparatus of claim 19, wherein the body portion 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 (Lara: Fig. 6-8).
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.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lara (US Patent No. 6,467,574) in view of Slagle (US Patent No. 9,759,244).
Regarding Claim 9, Lara, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 7, but fails to disclose an attachment portion that is lockable in the at least substantially horizontal position via an engagement of at least a portion of the attachment portion with the body portion.
However, Slagle teaches an attachment portion (Slagle: Fig. 2, 6; 32) that is lockable in an at least substantially horizontal position via an engagement of at least a portion (Slagle: Fig. 2, 6; 68) of the attachment portion with a body portion (Slagle: Fig. 2, 6; 30).
Lara and Slagle are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. minimizing functional error of clamping operations. 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 body and arms of the attachment portion in Lara with the attachment portion profile and body surface from Slagle, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an attachment portion structure that allows a user to position the pivot pin at a number of desired positions with respect to the body, thereby enabling a user to accurately actuate and hold the apparatus to a desired position (Slagle: Col. 1, Ln. 51-67; Col. 2, Ln. 1-8).
Regarding Claim 10, Lara, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the portion (Slagle: Fig. 2; 68) of the attachment portion (Lara: Fig. 1-5; 20-21) comprises one or more opposite arms (Lara: Fig. 1-5; 20) of the attachment portion.
Regarding Claim 11, Lara, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the engagement of the at least a portion of the attachment portion (Lara: Fig. 1-5; 20-21) with the body portion (Lara: Fig. 1-2; 1) comprises a surface of each of the one or more opposite arms being configured in an at least substantially flush arrangement against a bottom surface (Slagle: Fig. 6; 54, 58) of one or more outer portions of the body portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
520
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Chandler; Fig. 1, 3
PNG
media_image2.png
616
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
II: Lecourt; Fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
474
493
media_image3.png
Greyscale
III: Lara; Fig. 2
Conclusion
Applicant's 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 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
Prosecution Insights