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 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Birckhahn et al., DE 102010027153.
Regarding claim 1, Birckhahn discloses a carabiner hook, comprising: a hook-shaped main body (1); a closing lever (3); a retaining part (20); and an actuating lever (12); wherein the hook-shaped main body (1) partially surrounds a receiving opening (7) of the carabiner hook; the closing lever (3) is mounted on the hook-shaped main body (1) by a closing lever pivot (5a) so as to be pivotable between a closed position (figure 2) and a maximum open position (figure 3), wherein, in the closed position, the receiving opening (7) is closed with respect to an outside by the closing lever (3) and, in the maximum open position, the receiving opening (7) is opened to the maximum extent with respect to the outside; the closing lever (3) is retainable in the closed position by the retaining part (20), and the closing lever (3) is pivotable from the closed position into the maximum open position by the actuating lever (12), which is mounted pivotably on the hook-shaped main body (1) by an actuating lever pivot (12a); and the actuating lever (12) exerts a pivoting action on the closing lever (3) via an actuating pin (14) guided in a slotted actuating hole (16a), wherein, at least in the closed position, a distance between the actuating pin (14) and the actuating lever pivot (12a) is at least three times greater (feature from the figures) than a distance between the actuating pin (14) and the closing lever pivot (5a). It is noted that the distance from the pin (14) to the pivot (12a) is substantially greater than the distance from the pin (14) to the lever pivot (5a) due to the relatively short lever arm (10) as shown in the figure 2. Therefore, making the ratio of these distances from the disclosed structure to be at least 3:1 (as claimed to be three times) to be nearly anticipated since the principle of a longer actuating lever arm (12) relative to the driven arm (10) produces greater mechanical advantage. However, Birckhahn does not explicitly disclose the distance between the actuating pin and the actuating lever pivot is at least three times greater than the distance between the actuating pin and the closing lever pivot.
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 claimed distance to be ‘at least three times greater’ to provide a mechanical advantage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it is noted that applicant has provided no evidence of criticality or unexpected results for the claimed ratio of being ‘three times’ greater.
Regarding claim 2, Birckhahn teaches the carabiner hook as claimed in claim 1, wherein, as the actuating lever (12) pivots through an actuating lever pivoting angle, a closing lever pivoting angle of the closing lever (3) which is thereby brought about is at least six times as great as the actuating lever pivoting angle. It is noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Birckhahn teaches the carabiner hook as claimed in claim 1, wherein the actuating lever pivot (12a) and the closing lever pivot (5a) are arranged on a first side of the hook-shaped main body (1), and the retaining part (20) is secured on the hook-shaped main body (1) on a second side of the hook-shaped main body (1), which is opposite the first side (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, Birckhahn teaches the carabiner hook as claimed in claim 3, wherein the carabiner hook is elongate in one direction, and the first side (front side having 4c and 12) and the second side (rear side having 20) lie opposite one another with respect to a longitudinal center line extending in a direction of longitudinal extent.
Regarding claim 5, Birckhahn teaches the carabiner hook as claimed in claim 1, wherein the retaining part (20) is a retaining lever (figure 4) mounted pivotably on the hook-shaped main body (1) by a retaining part pivot (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Birckhahn teaches the carabiner hook as claimed in claim 5, wherein the actuating lever pivot (8) and the closing lever pivot (5a) are arranged on a first side (the front side) of the hook-shaped main body (1), the retaining part (20) is secured on the hook-shaped main body (1) on a second side (the rear side) of the hook-shaped main body (1), which is opposite the first side, and the retaining part pivot (see figure 4; pivot element below 24 where circular hole is drawn) is arranged on the second side of the hook-shaped main body (1).
Regarding claim 7, Birckhahn teaches the carabiner hook as claimed in claim 1, wherein, in the closed position, the closing lever (3) rests against a freely projecting end (see figure 2) of the hook-shaped main body (1), and the closing lever pivot (5a) is arranged between the freely projecting end of the hook-shaped main body (1) and the actuating lever pivot (12a).
Regarding claim 8, Birckhahn teaches the carabiner hook as claimed in claim 1. Birckhahn does not expressly teach wherein the actuating pin (14) is fixed on the actuating lever (12), and the slotted actuating hole (16a) is arranged in the closing lever (3). Instead, Birckhahn discloses a pin and slot linkage between the actuating lever and the closing lever having three members (5, 10, 12) arrangement. Therefore, eliminating the guidance slot (16a) and instead fixing the actuating pin (14) directly to the actuating lever (12) with a corresponding slot in the closing lever (3) would reduce component complexity and thus simplifying the engineering process. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the parts of the slotted hole to be in the closing lever (3) and the actuating pin (14) fixed to the actuating lever (12) to arrive at the claimed invention, since it has been held that rearrangement of these mentioned parts does not modify the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 9, Birckhahn teaches the carabiner hook as claimed in claim 1, wherein the actuating pin (14) has a diameter (inherent feature), measured in the slotted actuating hole (16a), and a maximum displacement travel (inherent feature) of the actuating pin (14) in the slotted actuating hole (16a) is provided.
Birckhahn does not expressly teach the maximum displacement travel of the actuating pin in the slotted actuating hole is no more than twice as great as the diameter of the actuating pin. However, the travel of the actuating pin (14) within the slotted actuating hole (16a) is a result-effective variable and minimizing the travel reduces the frictional contact between the pin and (walls of) the actuating hole to affect the actuation of the closing lever. In other words, the relationship between pin travel, pin diameter, slot geometry and resulting friction is a configuration well within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the mechanical art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the pin-slot mechanism of Birckhahn such that the maximum displacement travel of the actuating pin in the slotted actuating hole is no more than twice as great as the diameter of the pin, in order to minimize frictional resistance between the actuating pin and the slotted actuating hole and thereby reducing the force needed to actuate the closing lever. Further, it is noted that the claimed ratio of less than 2x does not have criticality in the disclosure and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, Birckhahn teaches the carabiner hook as claimed in claim 1, wherein the retaining part (20) exerts a retaining action on the closing lever (3) via a retaining pin (22).
Regarding claim 11, Birckhahn teaches the carabiner hook as claimed in claim 10, wherein the retaining pin (22) is adapted to be supported on the hook-shaped main body (1) when retaining the closing lever (3).
Regarding claim 17, Birckhahn teaches the carabiner hook as claimed in claim 1. Birckhahn does not explicitly disclose wherein the hook-shaped main body is covered, at least in some region or regions, with a polymer layer in a region adjoining the receiving opening. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art of carabiner (fastener) hooks that covering the main body with a polymer layer in a region adjoining the receiving opening in order to reduce abrasion of the hook body caused by repeated contact with steel cables, reduce wear on the steel cable itself and reduce noise generated as the hook slides along the cable. The application of a polymer or rubber layer to the cable contact region of a carabiner hook is a routine and widely practiced design technique. 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 hook of Birckhahn to include a polymer layer (as recognized in the art) in order to reduce abrasion damage to the hook body, reduce wear on the steel rope and reduce noise as the carabiner hook slides along the steel cable.
Regarding claim 18, Birckhahn teaches carabiner hook as claimed in claim 1, wherein the distance between the actuating pin (4) and the actuating lever pivot (12a) is greater than the distance between the actuating pin (14) and the closing lever pivot (5a) throughout an entire pivoting movement of the closing lever from the closed position (figure 2) to the maximum open position (figure 3). Birckhahn does not expressly teach wherein the distance is at least three times greater. 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 claimed distance to be at least three times greater throughout the pivoting movement in order to provide a consistent mechanical advantage over the full opening stroke of the closing lever, since it has been that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19, Birckhahn teaches carabiner hook as claimed in claim 1, wherein the actuating lever pivot (12a), the closing lever pivot (5a), and the actuating pin (14) are arranged on a same side (the front side having 4c and 12) of the hook-shaped main body (1) in the closed position (figure 2).
Regarding claim 20, Birckhahn teaches carabiner hook as claimed in claim 8, wherein the actuating pin (14) has a diameter (inherent feature) measured in the slotted actuating hole, and a maximum displacement travel (inherent feature) of the actuating pin (14) in the slotted actuating hole is provided. Birckhahn does not expressly teach wherein a maximum displacement travel of the actuating pin in the slotted actuating hole is no more than twice as great as the diameter of the actuating pin. However, as set forth in the rejection of claim 9, the travel of the actuating pin within the slotted actuating hole is a result-effective variable. Minimizing the travel reduces the frictional contact between the pin and the walls of the actuating hole, which affects the actuation of the closing lever. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the rearranged pin-slot mechanism of Birckhahn such that the maximum displacement is no more than twice as great as the diameter of the actuating pin, in order to minimize the frictional resistance between the actuating pin and the slotted actuating hole and thereby reduce the force needed to actuate the closing lever.
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birckhahn et al., DE 102010027153 in view of Smith et al., US 5,896,630.
Regarding claim 12, Birckhahn teaches the carabiner hook as claimed in claim 1 except for the hook further comprising a blocking part for blocking the retaining part, and the retaining part blocked by the blocking part retains the closing lever in the closed position.
Smith further teaches a hook connector further comprising a blocking part (18) for blocking the retaining part (11), and the retaining part (11) blocked by the blocking part (18) retains the closing lever (8) in the closed position (figure 2). 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 hook of Birckhahn to include a blocking part for blocking as taught by Smith in order to provide an additional locking feature that prevents accidental actuation of the retaining part and further reduces the risk of inadvertent gate opening under the conditions of climbing and fall arrest use.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Birckhahn and Smith teaches the carabiner hook as claimed in claim 12. Smith further teaches wherein the blocking part (18) is a blocking slide, which is slidably mounted (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Birckhahn and Smith teaches the carabiner hook as claimed in claim 13. Smith further teaches wherein the blocking slide (18) is slidably mounted on the hook-shaped main body (2).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Birckhahn and Smith teaches the carabiner hook as claimed in claim 13. Smith further teaches wherein the blocking part (18) is mounted such that the blocking part (18) is movable backward and forward between two end positions (see figures 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Birckhahn and Smith teaches the carabiner hook as claimed in claim 15. Smith further teaches wherein the blocking part (18) latches in the end positions (see tabs 23).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is based on hindsight and that modifying Birckhahn to obtain the claimed distance relationship (at least three times greater) would require changing the geometry of the guide pin (14) and elongated holes (16a, 16b), which Birckhahn identifies as responsible for the dual locking and opening function of the actuating element (12). Applicant further argues that such a modification would materially alter Birckhahn’s principle of operation. The arguments are found not persuasive.
Birckhahn attributes the dual function of the actuating element (12) to the angled shape of the second elongated hole (16b) and the relative position of the two elongated holes (16a, 16b; see paragraph [0026]). The dual function does not depend on any particular ratio between the distance from the guide pin (14) to the pivot (12a) and the distance from the guide pin (14) to the pivot (5a). This ratio may be increased without eliminating the angled slot relationship; the modified carabiner hook (three times greater lever pivot distance) would still operate through the guide pin and the two slots lever linkage, not altering Birckhahn’s principle of operation. Moreover, Birckhahn has recognized that the actuating element (12) acts as a lever that exerts a lever force on the short lever arm (10) to open the closing lever (3). The relative lever arm lengths are therefore a recognized result-effective variable, and optimizing them to obtain a desired mechanical advantage involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPW 233.
Applicant’s assertion that extending the actuating lever (12) or displacing the pivot axis (12a) toward the hook arch would lead to unwanted actuation during use is not supported by evidence and does not address other available modifications, such as shortening the short lever arm (10).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, the relationship between lever arm lengths and mechanical advantage is basic mechanical knowledge within the level of ordinary skill in the art, and applicant has provided no evidence of criticality or unexpected results for the claimed ratio.
With regards to claim 2, applicant argues that Birckhahn does not disclose the claimed angular movement relationship. However, the ratio between the closing lever pivoting angle and the actuating lever pivoting angle is a direct consequence of the same lever arm (geometric) relationship addressed in claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 is obvious for the same reasons set forth above.
With regards to claim 8, applicant argues that eliminating the first elongated hole (16a) and relocating the slotted actuating hole to the closing lever (3) would remove one of the two elongated holes that Birckhahn relies upon for its dual closure-locking and lever-opening function. However, the rejection relies on the embodiment of figure 4, in which the retaining part (20) already retains the closing lever (3) in the closed position. In that embodiment, the closure-locking contribution of the two-slot geometry is redundant to the retaining part (20). It has been held that omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (see MPEP 2144.04(II)(A)). Further, once the guidance slot (16a) is omitted, fixing the actuating pin (14) on the actuating lever (12) with a corresponding slot in the closing lever (3) is a rearrangement of the pin and slot between the two levers. This rearrangement continues to transmit the pivoting motion of the actuating lever (12) to the closing lever (3) in the same manner.
With regards to claims 12-16, Smith has been relied upon for the claimed blocking part. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are based on combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Applicant has not challenged Smith’s teaching of the blocking part (18) or stated motivation to combine. It is noted that the combination does not rely on Smith to modify Birckhahn’s guide-pin/two-slot actuating mechanism, and the combination does not require a redesign as argued. Smith is relied upon for the blocking part (18) that blocks the retaining part (11) and that said blocking part is added to act on Birckhahn’s retaining part (20), which is separate from the actuating element (12) and the guide pin (14) and elongated holes (16a, 16b).
Regarding claim 17, examiner’s assertion of official notice from the Office Action mailed April 28, 2026 with regards to covering the main body with a polymer layer to reduce abrasion is now taken to be admitted prior art due to Applicant's failure to traverse said official notice (see MPEP § 2144.03).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROWLAND DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 7:00 PT.
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.
/R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677
