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 .
Amendment filed 8/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wescott US 2016/0152453 (hereinafter Wescott).
Re. Cl. 20, Wescott discloses: A method of establishing a temporary overhead anchor (Fig. 5) comprising: releasing a shuttle (401, Fig. 4-5) from a shuttle subassembly (542, 544, 546, 548, Fig. 5) attached to an overhead anchor point (522, Fig. 6; releasing 401 using 410 or releasing from an overhead position so that 401 can be lowered); lowering the shuttle from the shuttle subassembly using a load lifting system (546, 544, 542; lowering 401 by releasing tension on 546); attaching fall arrest equipment to the shuttle (500, attached using 510, 512); raising the shuttle and attached fall arrest equipment back to the overhead anchor point (raising 401 using 546); and engaging the shuttle into the shuttle subassembly using the load lifting system so that the fall arrest equipment is established as a temporary overhead anchor (see Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wescott in view of Ostrobrod US 2018/0104519 (hereinafter Ostrobrod).
Re. Cl. 1, Wescott discloses: An apparatus (540, Fig. 5) for establishing a temporary overhead anchor (see Fig. 5), the apparatus comprising: a clamp subassembly (100, Fig. 5) configured for attachment to an overhead anchor point (see 552, Fig. 5), the clamp subassembly comprising a plurality of extension arms (see Fig. 3, arms with teeth 102a, 102b), a pole (550, Fig. 5) with an engagement end (see Fig. 5, top end of 550 which engages 200); and a shuttle subassembly (542, 544, 546, 548, 400, Fig. 5) for attachment to the clamp subassembly (see Fig. 5, via 304) and comprising a load lifting system (546, 544, 542, Fig. 5) and a detachable shuttle (400, detachable via 410, Fig. 5) configured to raise and lower fall arrest equipment (500, Fig. 5) from a first level to the overhead anchor point (see Fig. 5, using 546), wherein the apparatus is configured to be the temporary overhead anchor for the fall arrest equipment when the detachable shuttle is attached to the shuttle subassembly (see Fig. 5).
Re. Cl. 8, Wescott discloses: the load lifting system further comprises a rope and pulley system (see 544, 542, 546, Fig. 5).
Re. Cls. 1-2 and 4, Wescott does not disclose the extension arms movable relative to one another in a scissor-like manner, wherein one or more of the extension arms are comprised of a locking assembly (Cl. 1), each of the plurality of extension arms is pivotally connected to one another, and wherein the clamp subassembly is configured to be attached to the overhead anchor point comprising one of: a pipe, an I-beam, or a D-ring (Cl. 2), or the locking subassembly comprises a release tab, and wherein the locking subassembly is biased by one or more biasing members into the locked configuration to prevent the plurality of extension arms of the clamp subassembly from opening outward until the release tab is pulled to disengage the biasing members to put the locking subassembly in the unlocked configuration (Cl. 4). Re. Cl. 1, Ostrobrod discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1, 4) for establishing a temporary overhead anchor (see Fig. 3), the apparatus comprising: a clamp subassembly (10, Fig. 1) configured for attachment to an overhead anchor point (see Fig. 3), the clamp subassembly comprising a plurality of extension arms (14, 16, Fig. 3) movable relative to one another in a scissor-like manner (see Fig. 2, the arms 14, 16 move relative to one another in a scissor-like manner since 14 and 16 pivot relative to one another to open and receive 39 therein; further, when looking along the direction of portion (39) seen in Fig. 2, it is the Examiner’s position that the arms 14 and 16 move like the blades do in a pair of scissors), wherein one or more of the extension arms are comprised of a locking assembly (46, Fig. 1); a pole (42, Fig. 4) with an engagement end (see Fig. 4, 44); and wherein the apparatus is configured to be the temporary overhead anchor for the fall arrest equipment (see Fig. 3). Re. Cl. 2, Ostrobrod discloses each of the plurality of extension arms is pivotally connected to one another (see Fig. 2), and wherein the clamp subassembly is configured to be attached to the overhead anchor point comprising one of: a pipe, an I-beam (see Fig. 3), or a D-ring. Re. Cl. 4, Ostrobrod discloses the locking subassembly comprises a release tab (56, Fig. 1), and wherein the locking subassembly is biased by one or more biasing members (52, Fig. 1) into the locked configuration to prevent the plurality of extension arms of the clamp subassembly from opening outward until the release tab is pulled to disengage the biasing members to put the locking subassembly in the unlocked configuration (see Fig. 2-3 and Paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the clamp subassembly of Wescott with the clamp subassembly of Ostrobrod with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held obvious to replace one known means with another to achieve a predictable result (i.e. attaching to an overhead anchor point). KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wescott in view of Ostrobrod as applied above, and in further view of Kriz US 20230287912 (hereinafter Kriz).
Re. Cl. 3, the combination discussed above does not disclose the locking subassembly comprises a ratcheting mechanism which in an unlocked configuration allows the plurality of extension arms to freely open and close relative to one another, and in a locked configuration allows the extension arms to close relative to one another but prevents the extension arms from opening relative to one another. Kriz discloses a clamping apparatus (Fig. 1) configured for attached to an object, which includes a plurality of extension arms (32, 34, Fig. 1), wherein one or more of the extension arms are comprised of an alternate locking subassembly (see 8, Fig. 1). Re. Cl. 3, Kriz discloses the locking subassembly comprises a ratcheting mechanism (see 42 and 44) which in an unlocked configuration allows the plurality of extension arms to freely open and close relative to one another (when 40 is engaged and causes 8 to pivot as discussed in Paragraph 0042), and in a locked configuration allows the extension arms to close relative to one another but prevents the extension arms from opening relative to one another (when spring 28 drives 42 and 44 to be engaged as discussed in Paragraph 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the locking subassembly and extension arms of Ostrobrod with the locking subassembly and extension arms of Kriz with reasonable expectation of success since Kriz states that such a modification enables the extension arms to be locked in whatever orientation they happen to be when the trigger is released (Paragraph 0042, Lines 7-10). Such a modification would provide a more secure clamping since the extension arms would be locked at any position by more than just a biasing spring.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wescott in view of Ostrobrod as applied above and in further view of McCarthy US 6978730 (hereinafter McCarthy).
Re. Cl. 5, the combination of discussed above does not disclose the engagement end of the pole includes an interchangeable hook and magnetic end. McCarthy discloses a pole (10, Fig. 1) which has an engagement end (see Fig. 3) which includes an interchangeable hook (20, Fig.3) and magnetic end (22, Fig. 3).
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 pole of Wescott to have a magnetic end and have an interchangeable hook as disclosed by McCarthy with reasonable expectation of success since McCarthy states that such a modification enables the user to retrieve a line (Col. 3, Lines 12-15). Such a modification would be useful to Wescott in the instance the user could not immediately reach or grasp the line (i.e. the line is hanging in an inconvenient area for the user to reach).
Re. Cl. 6, Wescott discloses: the clamp assembly comprises a pole mount receiver (210, Fig. 3) for receiving the magnetic end of the pole (see Fig. 3, the receiver is capable of receiving a magnetic pole end structured to fit within 210).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9-19 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Wescott and claim 1, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a combination of Wescott in view of Ostrobrod.
Re. Applicant’s argument that Ostrobrod does not disclose that the two arms are movable connected to one another in a scissor-like motion, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that the configuration of Ostrobrod is a clam shell motion one a single hinge axis. It is the Examiner’s position that the clam-shell type movement is “scissor-like” as required by amended claim 1. In other words, it is the Examiner’s position that the term “scissor-like” covers what is disclosed by Ostrobrod. As discussed above and seen Fig. 2, the arms 14 and 16 move relative to one another in a scissor-like manner since 14 and 16 pivot relative to one another to open and receive 39 therein. Further, when looking along the direction of portion (39) seen in Fig. 2, it is the Examiner’s position that the arms 14 and 16 move like the blades do in a pair of scissors, thus meeting Applicant’s claim language. If the Applicant has a more specific configuration or definition which differentiates over Ostrobrod it is suggested that the Applicant further amend the claim to define the structure as such. However, the current claim language is broad enough to encompass the “clamshell” type movement of Ostrobrod in the Examiner’s position. Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that Wescott’s disclosure is insufficient since its shuttle is used to raise and lower a canine harness or ballistic vest and not fall arrest equipment, the Examiner disagrees. Firstly, the Applicants current claim 1 does not require the specific fall arrest equipment since it merely states that “a detachable shuttle configured to raise and lower fall arrest equipment” (see Line 9-10 of claim 1). In other words, the limitation referring to fall arrest equipment is intended use since it merely requires the shuttle be configured to raise and lower fall arrest equipment. In Wescott, it is the Examiner’s position that such a configuration is present since it’s shuttle is configured to support the canine harness as discussed above. Further, the term “fall arrest equipment” has not been given a special definition and is therefore interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant appears to be of the position that the claims require a particular definition of the fall arrest equipment (i.e. supporting a human, etc.). However, the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require such limits. The canine harness of Wescott (500) is a fall arrest structure since it prevents the canine from falling or dropping into the intended space by lowering the canine in a controlled manner. Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Wescott is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, it is the Examiner’s position that the Wescott disclosure is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor (i.e. overhead anchors) and also is therefore reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned (establishing an overhead anchor and shuttle system; Specification Paragraph 0002). Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the locking subassembly of Kriz would not be applicable to Wescott or Ostrobrod, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that since Wescott/Ostrobrod are actuatable from the ground whereas the clamp subassembly is overhead, it is incompatible with Kriz’s hand actuation of the clamp subassembly. However, it is the Examiner’s position that Kriz’s clamp subassembly is capable of being actuated in the manner actuated by Wescott and Ostrobrod. Further, it is the Examiner’s position that modifying the Wescott and Ostrobrod combination to have its locking subassembly be the ratcheting mechanism of Kriz would not affect how the clamp subassembly were actuated. The substitution of the locking subassembly of Kriz into the Wescott in view of Ostrobrod device would still function as desired (i.e. being actuated from the ground) in the Examiner’s position. Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that McCarthy does not disclose the interchangeable hook and magnetic end as required by claim 5, the Examiner disagrees. As discussed above, the end of the pole either has two ends, the magnetic end (22) when (20) is removed and the hook end (20) as seen in Fig. 4. The end configurations are interchangeable since they can be used separately from one another. Applicant appears to be arguing that their end structure is distinguishable from McCarthy. The Examiner does not necessarily disagree with this assertion but it is the Examiner’s position that the claims do not reflect this configuration at the present moment. Specifically, Applicant’s ends are separate parts attachable to the end of the pole (see Fig. 11a and 11b) in an interchangeable manner. Since Applicant’s current claim limitation does not reflect this particular configuration, the Examiner is of the position that they read on McCarthy and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Walls US 3612459, Patterson US 1343641, Ostrobrod US 9469025, and Lane US 11850721 disclose other known devices which are presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
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 CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights