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 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites “and other annular section is detachably coupled”, which should be “and the other annular section is detachably coupled”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3-6, 8-9, 12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davatz (DE 3728282) in view of Longworth (US 3188052) and Deuer (US 5855251).
Regarding claim 1, Davatz teaches of a fall arrest system (p. 1, fall protection device) comprising:
a plurality of pulleys (figs. 1 and 8, securing units 17, 17’ are pulleys);
a plurality of holders (fig. 8, tab at the top of the pulleys 17, 17’), each holder being coupled to a pulley of the plurality of pulleys (seen in fig. 8) and configured to mount the respective pulley onto a mounting area of a structure or the ground (fig. 1, mounted on a roof 11);
at least one pre-tensioned rope (fig. 1, abstract, securing cable 19 is constantly taut) wrapped around the plurality of pulleys (wrapped around pulleys 17, 17’) and configured to rotate along the plurality of pulleys (rotates along the circumference of the pulleys 17, 17’); and
at least one coupling hook (fig. 8, eyelet 34).
Davatz does not appear to teach of wherein at least one of the plurality of pulleys comprises at least one centrifugal brake;
at least one coupling hook rigidly coupled to the at least one pre-tensioned rope.
Longworth teaches of wherein at least one of the plurality of pulleys comprises at least one centrifugal brake (fig. 2, col. 1 lines 26-28, The pulley P, free wheel clutch C and centrifugal brake B are preferably mounted coaxially with the drum).
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 Davatz to incorporate the teachings of Longworth of wherein at least one of the plurality of pulleys comprises at least one centrifugal brake in order to control the speed in which the rope unwinds from the pulley to be safe and comfortable as motivated by Longworth in col. 2 lines 26-36.
Deuer teaches of (fig. 2) at least one coupling hook (frame assembly 10) rigidly coupled to the at least one pre-tensioned rope (col. 5 lines 11-24, safety line 24 has a spring 70 to provide tension on the line) (figs. 8-9, col. 4 line 64 – col. 5 line 10, Specifically, as may be best seen in FIGS. 8 and 9, the pins 84, 86 act in combination with the bushings 32, 34 to form two strong beam members extending across the width of the main frame portion 12 and aligned along a line parallel to the axis 26 of the channel 22 aligned to safety line 24, providing a rigid coupling to the safety line 24. In addition to this beam structure contributing to the rigidity acts as the frame portion 12, it further acts as the supports for the cam members 50 and 52 whereby the cam members 50, 52 are supported on a rigid support structure which resists deformation when heavy loads are applied to the security device on safety line 24. ).
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 Davatz to incorporate the teachings of Deuer of at least one coupling hook rigidly coupled to the at least one pre-tensioned rope in order to resist deformation when heavy loads are applied to the security device on safety line and keep the worker safe as motivated by Deuer in col. 4 line 64 – col. 5 line 10
Regarding claim 3, Davatz as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the at least one centrifugal brake actuates automatically by utilizing centrifugal forces to prevent free fall of the user from the mounting area.
Longworth teaches of wherein the at least one centrifugal brake actuates automatically by utilizing centrifugal forces to prevent free fall of the user from the mounting area (col. 2 lines 26-36, The centrifugal brake B actuates automatically by utilizing centrifugal forces of the rope via the user applying tension due to his own weight to the rope R which then unwinds from the drum D at a speed which is controlled by the pulley P, in turn controlled by the centrifugal brake B so as to effect a speed of lowering which is safe and comfortable. This prevents free fall of the user from the mounting area of the device).
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 Davatz to incorporate the teachings of Longworth of wherein the at least one centrifugal brake actuates automatically by utilizing centrifugal forces to prevent free fall of the user from the mounting area in order to automatically have the speed of the pulley be safe and comfortable for the user as motivated by Longworth in col. 2 lines 26-36.
Regarding claim 4, Davatz as modified teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 1) wherein each of the plurality of holders is configured to be mounted to the respective mounting area regardless of the orientation of the respective mounting area (mounted to the area on the running rail 13 on the roof 11 regardless of the orientation of the running rail 13 or the roof 11).
Regrading claim 5, Davatz as modified teaches of claim 1, and wherein at least one tensioner (fig. 1, p. 3, a return spring constantly pull in the safety rope 19) is installed with the at least one of the plurality of pulleys (installed with the pulleys 17, 17’) and configured to maintain alignment and tension of the at least one pre-tensioned rope (maintains alignment and tension of the at least one pre-tensioned rope 19).
Regarding claim 6, Davatz as modified teaches of claim 5, and wherein the at least one tensioner has a spring loaded arm (p. 3, return spring) configured to apply pressure and align the at least one pre-tensioned rope along the plurality of pulleys (p.3, the return spring applies pressure and align the at least one pre-tensioned rope 19 along the plurality of pulleys 17, 17’).
Regarding claim 8, Davatz as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the at least one coupling hook has at least two annular sections, at least one annular section is rigidly coupled to the at least one pre-tensioned rope and the other annular section is detachably coupled to at least one lanyard.
Deuer teaches of (fig. 2) wherein the at least one coupling hook (frame assembly 10) has at least two annular sections (ring portion 72 and U-shaped portion 20), at least one annular section is rigidly coupled to the at least one pre-tensioned rope (figs. 8-9, col. 4 line 64 – col. 5 line 10, Specifically, as may be best seen in FIGS. 8 and 9, the pins 84, 86 act in combination with the bushings 32, 34 to form two strong beam members extending across the width of the main frame portion 12 and aligned along a line parallel to the axis 26 of the channel 22 aligned to safety line 24, providing a rigid coupling to the safety line 24. In addition to this beam structure contributing to the rigidity acts as the frame portion 12, it further acts as the supports for the cam members 50 and 52 whereby the cam members 50, 52 are supported on a rigid support structure which resists deformation when heavy loads are applied to the security device on safety line 24.) and the other annular section (72) is detachably coupled to at least one lanyard (col. 4 lines 19-30, annular section 72 provides an attachment point for a worker’s lanyard).
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 Davatz to incorporate the teachings of Deuer of wherein the at least one coupling hook has at least two annular sections, at least one annular section is rigidly coupled to the at least one pre-tensioned rope and the other annular section is detachably coupled to at least one lanyard in order to resist deformation when heavy loads are applied to the fall arrest system and keep the worker safe as motivated by Deuer in col. 4 line 64 – col. 5 line 10.
Regarding claim 9, Davatz as modified teaches of claim 8, and wherein the at least one lanyard is configured to attach the user with the at least one coupling hook (as modified by Deuer to attach to a worker’s lanyard on the at least one coupling hook with the worker attached to the lanyard).
Regarding claim 12, Davatz teaches of a fall arrest system (p. 1, fall protection device) comprising:
a plurality of pulleys (figs. 1 and 8, securing units 17, 17’ are pulleys);
a plurality of holders (fig. 8, tab at the top of the pulleys 17, 17’), each holder being coupled to a pulley of the plurality of pulleys (seen in fig. 8) and configured to mount the respective pulley onto a mounting area of a structure or the ground (fig. 1, mounted on a roof 11);
at least one pre-tensioned rope (fig. 1, abstract, securing cable 19 is constantly taut) wrapped around the plurality of pulleys (wrapped around pulleys 17, 17’) and configured to rotate along the plurality of pulleys (rotates along the circumference of the pulleys 17, 17’);
at least one tensioner (fig. 1, p. 3, a return spring constantly pull in the safety rope 19) coupled to at least one of the plurality of pulleys (coupled with the pulleys 17, 17’) and configured to maintain tension in the at least one pre-tensioned rope (maintains tension in the at least one pre-tensioned rope 19); and
at least one coupling hook (fig. 8, eyelet 34).
Davatz does not appear to teach of wherein at least one of the plurality of pulleys comprises at least one centrifugal brake;
at least one coupling hook rigidly coupled to the at least one pre-tensioned rope.
Longworth teaches of wherein at least one of the plurality of pulleys comprises at least one centrifugal brake (fig. 2, col. 1 lines 26-28, The pulley P, free wheel clutch C and centrifugal brake B are preferably mounted coaxially with the drum).
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 Davatz to incorporate the teachings of Longworth of wherein at least one of the plurality of pulleys comprises at least one centrifugal brake in order to control the speed in which the rope unwinds from the pulley to be safe and comfortable as motivated by Longworth in col. 2 lines 26-36.
Deuer teaches of (fig. 2) at least one coupling hook (frame assembly 10) rigidly coupled to the at least one pre-tensioned rope (col. 5 lines 11-24, safety line 24 has a spring 70 to provide tension on the line) (figs. 8-9, col. 4 line 64 – col. 5 line 10, Specifically, as may be best seen in FIGS. 8 and 9, the pins 84, 86 act in combination with the bushings 32, 34 to form two strong beam members extending across the width of the main frame portion 12 and aligned along a line parallel to the axis 26 of the channel 22 aligned to safety line 24, providing a rigid coupling to the safety line 24. In addition to this beam structure contributing to the rigidity acts as the frame portion 12, it further acts as the supports for the cam members 50 and 52 whereby the cam members 50, 52 are supported on a rigid support structure which resists deformation when heavy loads are applied to the security device on safety line 24).
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 Davatz to incorporate the teachings of Deuer of at least one coupling hook rigidly coupled to the at least one pre-tensioned rope in order to resist deformation when heavy loads are applied to the security device on safety line and keep the worker safe as motivated by Deuer in col. 4 line 64 – col. 5 line 10
Regarding claim 14, Davatz as modified teaches of claim 12, but does not appear to teach of wherein the at least one centrifugal brake actuates automatically by utilizing centrifugal forces to prevent free fall of the user from the mounting area.
Longworth teaches of wherein the at least one centrifugal brake actuates automatically by utilizing centrifugal forces to prevent free fall of the user from the mounting area (col. 2 lines 26-36, The centrifugal brake B actuates automatically by utilizing centrifugal forces of the rope via the user applying tension due to his own weight to the rope R which then unwinds from the drum D at a speed which is controlled by the pulley P, in turn controlled by the centrifugal brake B so as to effect a speed of lowering which is safe and comfortable. This prevents free fall of the user from the mounting area of the device).
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 Davatz to incorporate the teachings of Longworth of wherein the at least one centrifugal brake actuates automatically by utilizing centrifugal forces to prevent free fall of the user from the mounting area in order to automatically have the speed of the pulley be safe and comfortable for the user as motivated by Longworth in col. 2 lines 26-36.
Regarding claim 15, Davatz as modified teaches of claim 12, and (fig. 1) wherein each of the plurality of holders is configured to be mounted to the respective mounting area regardless of the orientation of the respective mounting area (mounted to the area on the running rail 13 on the roof 11 regardless of the orientation of the running rail 13 or the roof 11).
Regarding claim 16, Davatz as modified teaches of claim 12, and wherein the at least one tensioner having a spring loaded arm (p. 3, return spring) configured to apply pressure and align the at least one pre-tensioned rope along the plurality of pulleys (p.3, the return spring applies pressure and align the at least one pre-tensioned rope 19 along the plurality of pulleys 17, 17’).
Regarding claim 18, Davatz as modified teaches of claim 12, but does not appear to teach of wherein the at least one coupling hook has at least two annular sections, at least one annular section is rigidly coupled to the at least one pre-tensioned rope and the other annular section is detachably coupled to at least one lanyard.
Deuer teaches of (fig. 2) wherein the at least one coupling hook (frame assembly 10) has at least two annular sections (ring portion 72 and U-shaped portion 20), at least one annular section is rigidly coupled to the at least one pre-tensioned rope (figs. 8-9, col. 4 line 64 – col. 5 line 10, Specifically, as may be best seen in FIGS. 8 and 9, the pins 84, 86 act in combination with the bushings 32, 34 to form two strong beam members extending across the width of the main frame portion 12 and aligned along a line parallel to the axis 26 of the channel 22 aligned to safety line 24, providing a rigid coupling to the safety line 24. In addition to this beam structure contributing to the rigidity acts as the frame portion 12, it further acts as the supports for the cam members 50 and 52 whereby the cam members 50, 52 are supported on a rigid support structure which resists deformation when heavy loads are applied to the security device on safety line 24.) and the other annular section (72) is detachably coupled to at least one lanyard (col. 4 lines 19-30, annular section 72 provides an attachment point for a worker’s lanyard).
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 Davatz to incorporate the teachings of Deuer of wherein the at least one coupling hook has at least two annular sections, at least one annular section is rigidly coupled to the at least one pre-tensioned rope and the other annular section is detachably coupled to at least one lanyard in order to resist deformation when heavy loads are applied to the fall arrest system and keep the worker safe as motivated by Deuer in col. 4 line 64 – col. 5 line 10.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davatz as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Jean (US 20080142296).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Davatz as modified teaches of claims 1 and 12, but does not appear to teach of wherein at least one auxiliary pulley is arranged with at least one of the plurality of pulleys and is configured to maintain contact of the at least one pre-tensioned rope with the plurality of pulleys.
Jean teaches of (fig. 8) wherein at least one auxiliary pulley (auxiliary pulley 146) is arranged with at least one of the plurality of pulleys (hoisting means 140, housing 24) and is configured to maintain contact of the at least one pre-tensioned rope (cable 12) with the plurality of pulleys (seen in fig. 8).
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 Davatz to incorporate the teachings of Jean of wherein at least one auxiliary pulley is arranged with at least one of the plurality of pulleys and is configured to maintain contact of the at least one pre-tensioned rope with the plurality of pulleys in order to distribute the load and capacity of the system along multiple pulleys.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davatz as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US 20220088425), hereinafter Miller.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Davatz as modified teaches of claim 5 and 16, but does not appear to teach of wherein at least one tensioner sensor is coupled to the at least one tensioner and configured to measure tension applied over the at least one pre-tensioned rope.
Miller teaches of wherein at least one tensioner sensor (¶0029, sensing element may measure the strain on the tensioned cable of the safety system) is coupled to the at least one tensioner (fig.4, ¶0069, a tensioner 2042 to enable a cable 2001 to be tensioned appropriately; ¶0079, strain gauge can be at or near position 2032 by tensioner 2042 and would be coupled to the tensioner 2042) and configured to measure tension applied over the at least one pre-tensioned rope (¶0029, the sensors measure the tension on the tensioned cable).
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 Davatz to incorporate the teachings of Miller of wherein at least one tensioner sensor is coupled to the at least one tensioner and configured to measure tension applied over the at least one pre-tensioned rope in order to infer (e.g. in calculations performed in the base unit) that a deflection of a deflectable component to a given extent has occurred as motivated by Miller in para. 0029.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davatz as applied to claim 8 and 18 above, and further in view of Bell (US 5316102).
Regarding claim 10, Davatz as modified teaches of claim 8, but does not appear to teach of wherein the at least one lanyard is integrated with a shock absorber that is configured to absorb kinetic energy experienced by the user in case of a fall.
Bell teaches of (fig. 1) wherein the at least one lanyard (lanyard 28) is integrated with a shock absorber (shock absorber 30) that is configured to absorb kinetic energy experienced by the user in case of a fall (col. 4 lines 30-38, The shock absorber 30 is connected within a portion of the lanyard 28 and serves to absorb the shock if the worker 10 should fall from the structure once he/she is connected to the sliding anchor).
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 Davatz to incorporate the teachings of Bell of wherein the at least one lanyard is integrated with a shock absorber that is configured to absorb kinetic energy experienced by the user in case of a fall in order to keep the worker safe and absorb the shock if the worker should fall as motivated by Bell in col. 4 lines 30-38.
Regarding claim 19, Davatz as modified teaches of claim 18, and wherein the at least one lanyard is configured to attach the user with the at least one coupling hook (as modified by Deuer to attach to a worker’s lanyard with the worker attached to the lanyard on the at least one coupling hook).
Davatz does not appear to teach of wherein the at least one lanyard is integrated with a shock absorber that is configured to absorb kinetic energy experienced by the user in case of a fall.
Bell teaches of (fig. 1) wherein the at least one lanyard (lanyard 28) is integrated with a shock absorber (shock absorber 30) that is configured to absorb kinetic energy experienced by the user in case of a fall (col. 4 lines 30-38, The shock absorber 30 is connected within a portion of the lanyard 28 and serves to absorb the shock if the worker 10 should fall from the structure once he/she is connected to the sliding anchor).
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 Davatz to incorporate the teachings of Bell of wherein the at least one lanyard is integrated with a shock absorber that is configured to absorb kinetic energy experienced by the user in case of a fall in order to keep the worker safe and absorb the shock if the worker should fall as motivated by Bell in col. 4 lines 30-38.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davatz as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Riches et al. (WO 02074389), hereinafter Riches.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Davatz as modified teaches of claims 1 and 12, and (fig. 1) wherein at least one of the plurality of holders (holder for pulley 17) is coupled to the mounting area (running rail 13, roof 11) that is oriented at a first angle relative to a horizontal plane (seen in fig. 1) and another one of the plurality of holders (holder for pulley 17’) is coupled to the mounting area (seen in fig. 1).
Davatz does not appear to teach of another one of the plurality of holders is coupled to the mounting area that is oriented at a second angle relative to the horizontal plane, wherein the first angle is at least 15 degrees greater than the second angle.
Riches teaches of another one of the plurality of holders (track parts 2) is coupled to the mounting area (rooftops 4) that is oriented at a second angle relative to the horizontal plane (p. 18 line 27-p. 19 line 16, a first track section inclined at a first angle and a second track section inclined at a second angle, the second angle being different from the first angle), wherein the first angle is at least 15 degrees greater than the second angle (p. 12 line 23-p.13 line 6, the angles in which the inclined surface can be from horizontal can be greater than 15 degrees. The second angle can be at an angle greater than 15 degrees from the first angle, depending on the angle of the flat and sloped surfaces of the roof).
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 Riches of another one of the plurality of holders is coupled to the mounting area that is oriented at a second angle relative to the horizontal plane, wherein the first angle is at least 15 degrees greater than the second angle in order to be able to mount the fall arrest system across a range of different surfaces, including horizontal, vertical, and sloped.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOE TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-6pm 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/ZOE TAM TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights