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 .
The amendment filled 12/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 2-3, 7 and 9-10 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 11-12 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 11-14 remain pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 as currently amended recites “a second end having a folding end clamp thereon connecting said at least one rung of said ladder to said safety extension”; while previously the claim recited “to secure said at least one rung of said ladder to said safety extension”, which only recited the ladder in intended use form, however, currently the recitation above positively recites and requires the presence of the ladder as part of the claim. Hence, the claim is being examined as a combination claim of: “A universal apparatus” and “A ladder”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a terminal rung” in line 7, is this one of the “plurality of spaced rungs” for the safety extension established in line 3?
Claim 4 line 3 recites “a folding end clamp” is this the end clamp established in claim 1 line 8 from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites “one of said ladder rungs” where only one rung is possible for the ladder per the recitation in claim 1 i.e., “at least one rung” (claim 1 line 1-2). The same issue applies to “said ladder rungs” in line 2 of claim 5.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said safety extension spaced rungs" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said ladder connector" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 line 2 recites “an opposed pair of spring-loaded folding clamps” do these include the folding end clamp established in line 8 of claim 1?
Claim 6 recites “a ladder rung” in line 3; is it the same or other than the “at least one rung”?
Note that issues regarding claim 6 also applies in claims 11 and 13.
Claims 6 and 12 appears to have the wrong status indicators.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(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.
Claim 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richardson, US (193895).
In regards to claim 8 Richardson discloses:
A universal apparatus (figs. 1-4) for providing a safety extension {A’(s), a(s), b(s), B, C(s)} for a ladder having at least one rung comprising:
said safety extension {A’(s), a(s), b(s), B, C(s)} having a plurality of foldable connected rungs {a(s); as shown in fig. 4} each secured to pair of opposed rigid legs {links b(s) being rigid pieces as shown in figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4} that are capable of rotation around said rungs (as shown in fig. 4; folded state);
a ladder connector {B, C(s)} having a first end (C at bottom end of B) rotatably secured (bottom clamp C being rotatable with top rung a as shown in fig. 2) to a terminal end (top end) of said safety extension (see annotated drawings below) and a second end (C at top end of B) having a pair of spaced clamps (top two clamps Cs, right and left hand side assemblies of B and two Cs; fig. 1) thereon for rotatably securing said safety extension to a rung of said ladder (as shown in fig. 1), whereby said safety extension rotates with respect to said at least one ladder rung (via connector B and clamps Cs; where both clamps can rotate as well as rotating flexible rope or chain B).
PNG
media_image1.png
716
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
182
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
150
637
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 14 Richardson discloses said ladder connector is rotatably secured (both clamps can rotate as well as rotating flexible rope or chain B) to a terminal rung (top most rung) of said safety extension (fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson, US (193895) in view of Hulme, US (4519478).
In regards to claim 1 Richardson discloses:
A universal apparatus (figs. 1-4) for extending a ladder having at least one rung comprising:
a safety extension {A’(s), a(s), b(s), B, C(s)} having a plurality of spaced rungs {a(s)} each of said rungs {a(s)} secured to an opposed pair of hinged legs {b(s)} that are capable of rotation around said rungs (as shown in fig. 4; folded state);
a ladder connector clamp {two clamps C(s) connected by rope or chain B} having a first end (bottom C at end of B) rotatably secured (bottom clamp C being rotatable with top rung a as shown in fig. 2) to a terminal rung {top most rung of extension A’(s), a(s), b(s), B, C(s)} of said safety extension (A’(s), a(s), b(s), B, C(s)) and a second end (C at top end of B) having a folding end clamp {top clamp C; following two interpretations (a) that the 8-shaped top clamp is folded or where the rope can bend/fold at its center point as none-limiting example} thereon.
In regards to claim 1 Richardson does not disclose the second end of the connector clamp is connecting said at least one rung of said ladder (now being positively recited) to said safety extension.
Hulme teaches a safety extension (10; fig. 1) and ladder connector clamp (34; fig. 1) with a first end secured to top most rung of 10 and a second end (at hooks formed by 42 and slot 38; fig. 1) connecting said at least one rung of said ladder (rung 29 of ladder 20; fig. 1) to said safety extension (10) (as shown in figs. 1, 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
490
708
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a ladder such as ladder 20 as taught by Hulme to attach the universal apparatus of Richardson in the same manner the apparatus of Richardson is attached to the gimlet pointed screw C’ C’, for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide access / extensions to short ladders with top attachment to elevated points (e.g., power lines, windows, ledges) or ladders permanently attached at an elevated height such as ladders to provide access to rooftops, mezzanines, and equipment. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find that the apparatus of Richardson is usable with non-telescoping / non-extending ladders at situations where added climbing distance is needed, and where the ladder can hang at its top.
In regards to claim 4 Richardson discloses said ladder connector clamp comprises: a folding end clamp having a pair of hinged hooks (see annotated drawings below) on one end thereof (top end) for engaging one of said ladder rungs.
PNG
media_image5.png
296
371
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5 Richardson discloses said hinged hooks are shaped to lock together (see fig. 2 and annotated drawings above) when engaging said ladder rungs and said safety extension spaced rungs.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson and Hulme or only Richardson as applied to claims 1 and 8 above respectively, and further in view of Kelly, US (494868).
In regards to claim 6 and 13 Richardson and Hulme do not teach an opposed pair of spring loaded folding clamps.
Kelly teaches ladder connector comprising: an opposed pair of spring loaded folding clamps (pair of 3s along with 9s and 7s; fig. 3), each clamp having a pair of overlapping hook ends (9s) for engaging a ladder rung (in the same manner as it engages pipe 15 as shown in fig. 3).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the top clamp C of Richardson with the clamp of Kelly for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for a clamp that with increased weight/load further closes/clamps against the object onto which it is attached/clamped for the obvious and predictable advantage of enhanced safety and being less prone to accidental disengagement at elevated heights.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson and Hulme as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kelly, US (494868).
In regards to claim 11 Richardson and Hulme do not teach a spring-loaded folding clamp.
Kelly teaches a spring-loaded folding clamp (3s, 7s; fig. 3) having a pair of spaced clamp ends (9s) for engaging said ladder rungs and said safety extension rungs.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the top clamp C of Richardson with the clamp of Kelly for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for a clamp that with increased weight/load further closes/clamps against the object onto which it is attached/clamped for the obvious and predictable advantage of enhanced safety and being less prone to accidental disengagement at elevated heights.
In regards to claim 12 Richardson as modified above teaches said clamp ends are shaped to lock together when engaged by said ladder rungs and said safety extension spaced rungs (as shown in fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Applicant argues “The Richardson patent entirely lacks a ladder clamp that has a first end that is rotatably secured to a rung of the safety extension and that has a second end having a pair of folding end clamps thereon to secure the safety extension to a rung of the ladder”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that Richardson indeed discloses a ladder connector clamp {two clamps C(s) connected by rope or chain B} having a first end (bottom C at end of B) rotatably secured (bottom clamp C being rotatable with top rung a as shown in fig. 2) to one of said plurality of spaced rungs of said safety extension (see annotated drawings below) and a second end (C at top end of B) having a clamp (top clamp C) thereon to secure (intended use) said at least one rung of said ladder to said safety extension (as shown in fig. 1 and in the same manner bottom C is secured to a rung at the bottom of B).
Applicant argues “This feature of the claimed invention permits the safety extension to rotate with respect to a rung of the ladder to which the safety extension is secured, which is necessary in ice rescues. Furthermore, the folding end claims allow a user to quickly connect the safety extension to a rung of the ladder with minimal effort and time, also essential features for ice rescues”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “necessary in ice rescues” / “to quickly connect the safety extension”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues “teaching of Richardson is quite simply not equivalent, or even similar to, the spaced pair of folding end clamps required by claims 1 and 8. It should be pointed out that based on the disclosure of Richardson, it is not clear how the fire escape disclosed therein would even be secured to a conventional ladder based on the structure cited therein”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that assuming applicant’s arguments are to take into consideration the now positively recited and required ladder (also please see “claim interpretation” section above); examiner presents that as highlighted in the current rejection utilizing reference Hulme: a person of ordinary skill in the art would utilize a ladder such as ladder 20 as taught by Hulme to attach the universal apparatus of Richardson in the same manner the apparatus of Richardson is attached to the gimlet pointed screw C’ C’, for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide access / extensions to short ladders with top attachment to elevated points (e.g., power lines, windows, ledges) or ladders permanently attached at an elevated height such as ladders to provide access to rooftops, mezzanines, and equipment. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find that the apparatus of Richardson is usable with non-telescoping / non-extending ladders at situations where added climbing distance is needed, and where the ladder can hang at its top.
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 SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/S.M.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634