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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is too long. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 6-9 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.
It is unclear whether claim 6 intends to tighten the belt/harness of the arborist/climber or secure the rope managing tool to the belt/harness of the arborist/climber. Claims 7-9 are rejected due to their dependency upon claim 6.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryan et al. (US 20050172459 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
300
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 of Ryan
Regarding claim 1, Ryan discloses a tool (140, cord retainer) for managing a rope (32, cord), comprising: a main body (12, body) having a proximal end (annotated figure 8 of Ryan) configured to attach to the waist belt or climber's harness (paragraph 43) and a distal end (annotated figure 8 of Ryan) configured to point away from the arborist or climber; a plurality of fingers (annotated figure 8 of Ryan) extending outwardly from the main body (12, body) of the tool (140, cord retainer) in a descending stair-like array (figure 8), the plurality of fingers including a topmost finger configured to be nearest to the user of the tool (annotated figure 8 of Ryan) and a lowermost finger extending furthest from the user (annotated figure 8 of Ryan), the plurality of fingers each configured to receive a section (paragraphs 35 and 56) of the rope (32, cord), each finger having a generally serpentine shape (figure 8) defining in conjunction with an adjacent finger a rope-receiving slot (34, slits) with a closed end in the form of a cavity (30, 148, holes) configured to receive a section (paragraphs 35 and 56) of the rope (32, cord), a tip of each finger being bendable (14, flexible web) for inserting or releasing a section of the rope (paragraph 34).
Examiner notes that “associated with a waist belt of an arborist or a climber’s harness” has not been given patentable weight because the preamble is used only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention and a structurally complete invention is defined in the claim body, meaning the preamble is not a claim limitation. See MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding claim 2, Ryan discloses that at least the plurality of fingers (annotated figure 8 of Ryan) comprises an elastomeric plastic (paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 3, Ryan discloses that the elastomeric plastic comprises thermoplastic urethane (TPU) (paragraph 39).
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, 4, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzner (DE 202020106707 U1) in view of Moises (BR MU9002560 Y1).
PNG
media_image2.png
429
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Holzner
Regarding claim 1, Holzner discloses a tool for managing a rope (1, rope holding device) associated with a waist belt of an arborist or a climber's harness (paragraph 12), comprising: a main body (2, support plate) having a proximal end (annotated figure 1 of Holzner) configured to attach to the waist belt or climber's harness (figure 2 and paragraph 13) and a distal end (12, end wall) configured to point away from the arborist or climber (figure 2); a plurality of fingers (5, 6, 7, 8, clamping elements) extending outwardly from the main body (2, support plate) of the tool (1, rope holding device), each finger (5, 6, 7, 8, clamping elements) having a generally serpentine shape (figure 2) defining in conjunction with an adjacent finger (5, 6, 7, 8, clamping elements) a rope-receiving slot (9, clamping channel) with a closed end in the form of a cavity (paragraph 17) configured to receive a section of the rope (S, rope loop), a tip of each finger (5, 6, 7, 8, clamping elements) being bendable (paragraph 14) for inserting or releasing a section of the rope (S, rope loop).
Holzner does not explicitly disclose the fingers of the tool descending in a stair-like array with a topmost finger configured to be nearest to the user of the tool and a lowermost finger extending furthest from the user and each finger being configured to receive a separate section of the rope.
Regarding claim 1, Moises teaches a tool (1, equipment) for managing a rope (12, synthetic cables) comprising: a main body (figure 1); a plurality of fingers (11, 13, rods) extending outwardly from the main body (figure 1) of the tool (1, equipment) in a descending stair-like array (figure 1), the plurality of fingers (11, 13, rods) including a topmost finger (13, small rods) configured to be nearest to the user of the tool and a lowermost finger (11, lateral rods) extending furthest from the user, the plurality of fingers (11, 13, rods) each configured to receive a section (figure 3-12) of the rope (12, synthetic cables), each finger (11, 13, rods) having a generally serpentine shape (figure 1) defining in conjunction with an adjacent finger a rope-receiving slot (3, 14, undercut) with a closed end in the form of a cavity configured to receive a section of the rope (figure 3-12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the clamping elements (5, 6, 7, 8) of Holzner to mimic the separate rope-receiving slots and stair-like array configuration as taught by Moises. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to have a rope holding device (1 of Holzner) able to hold multiple lines of rope as taught by Moises. The above modification results in increased security of the rope, multiple options for tying the rope, and the ability to accommodate multiple cables (Moises).
Regarding claim 4, the previously made combination of Holzner/Moises discloses that the main body (2, support plate of Holzner) includes an accessory slot (4E, loop of Holzner) comprising a curvilinear hole (figure 1 of Holzner) configured to receive a carabiner or connector (paragraph 13 of Holzner).
Regarding claim 5, Holzner/Moises discloses that the main body (2, support plate of Holzner) includes an inwardly facing hook (8, curvilinear device of Moises) above the plurality of fingers (11, 13, rods of Moises) configured to receive loose ends (figures 5-12 of Moises) of the rope (S, rope loop of Holzner).
Regarding claim 10, Holzner/Moises discloses a waist belt or climber's harness (G, belt of Holzner) to which the rope management tool (1, rope holding device of Holzner) is permanently attached (paragraph 12 of Holzner).
Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzner in view of Moises as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vogl (EP 1656847 A2).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood Holzner/Moises discloses the rope management tool (1, rope holding device of Holzner) of claim 1 further including a means to receive and secure (4, fastening device of Holzner) the waist belt or harness (G, belt of Holzner) of the arborist or climber.
Holzner/Moises does not explicitly disclose a pair of jaws configured to receive and secure the waist belt or harness of the arborist or climber.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood Vogl teaches a tool (1, retaining strap) including a pair of jaws (6, 7, legs) configured to receive and secure the waist belt or harness (17, garment) of the arborist or climber.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fastening device (4) of Holzner to include legs (6, 7) as taught by Vogl. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to have a secure way to attach the rope tool to a garment (paragraph 1 of Vogl).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood the previously made combination of Holzner/Moises/Vogl discloses a fastener (10, swivel bracket of Vogl) for fastening the pair of jaws (6, 7, legs of Vogl).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood Holzner/Moises/Vogl discloses each jaw (6, 7, legs of Vogl) includes inwardly facing teeth (8, 9, teeth of Vogl) configured to grip the waist belt or climber’s harness (paragraph 12 of Vogl).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzner/Moises/Vogl as applied to claims 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Cameron (US 20080104805 A1).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood Holzner/Moises/Vogl discloses a rope managing tool (1, rope holding device of Holzner) that can secure to a waist belt or harness (G, belt of Holzner) using a par of jaws (6, 7, legs of Vogl) and a fastener (10, swivel bracket of Vogl) for fastening the pair of jaws (6, 7, legs of Vogl).
Holzner/Moises/Vogl does not explicitly disclose the fastener being of the threaded barrel nut and bolt type in which the nut has a cylindrical outer surface, co- operable with a bore at the end of each jaw.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood Cameron teaches a tool (10, clip body) that can secure to a waist belt or harness (flexible sheet covering) using a par of jaws (14a, 14b, jaws) and a fastener (200, screw member) for fastening the pair of jaws (14a, 14b, jaws) wherein the fastener (200, screw member) is of the threaded barrel nut (22, knob member) and bolt type (200, screw member) in which the nut (22, knob member) has a cylindrical outer surface (figure 5B), co- operable with a bore (186, 194, bores) at the end of each jaw (14a, 14b, jaws) to minimise frictional wear.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the jaws (6, 7) of Vogl to be secured with the screw and knob member as taught by Cameron. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to have a closure and fastening means for the securing the rope tool to a harness that is secure and will not accidentally unfasten (paragraph 66 of Cameron).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fall (US 20070095991 A1) teaches a clip device that is secured to a structed with teethed jaws.
Petersen (US 20230118599 A1) teaches a rope coupling apparatus with outward fingers.
Messner (CN 102123632 A) teaches a teethed fastener with fastening means to secure the jaws.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARA BROOKS whose telephone number is (571)272-9484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am-5pm.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/K.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
