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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 19, 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because appears that the reference line for 120 is pointing to an included surface of the pin, and the reference line for 110 is pointing to an inclined surface of the rod. The opposite is disclosed in the specification (120 being disclosed as the inclined surface of the rod, and 110 as the inclined surface of the pin).
Applicant should make sure all subject matter is consistently disclosed throughout the specification, drawings and claims.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed June 19, 2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: [0023] “The second inclined surface 120 is an inclined cutting surface of the corresponding one of the two inserting rods 56.”
Examiner does not see any clear support in the original disclosure for what a “cutting surface” is. It appears to be a new term added to the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
See corresponding 112 rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Claim 1, the second inclined surface is an inclined cutting surface of the corresponding one of the two inserting rods.
Examiner does not see any clear support in the original disclosure for a “cutting surface”. It appears to be a new term added to the disclosure with the latest amendments.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-10 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.
Claim 1, the added limitation “the second inclined surface is an inclined cutting surface of the corresponding one of the two inserting rods” renders the claim generally indefinite and unclear. There is no mention of an “inclined cutting surface” in the specification for support or interpret as the claim limitation.
[Wingdings font/0xE0]As best understood, it appears the applicant may be trying to claim that the second inclined surface is formed by cutting the inserting rod. If this is the case, examiner notes that this would be considered product by process claim language and refers applicant to MPEP 2113 Product by Process Claims, where it is explained that the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production” and if “the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The limitation has been examined as best understood, and given the appropriate weight in light of the product by process language.
Dependent claims are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 104594790) in view of Chang (US 5,875,520), as best understood in light of the above rejections.
Wang discloses:
1. A step ladder with an armrest (fig 2), comprising:
two front legs (11; fig 2),
two rear legs (unnumbered rear legs opposing front legs 11; fig 2),
at least one rung (unnumbered top step; fig 2) and
an armrest (3, 6, 13), wherein:
the two front legs are symmetrically disposed on two sides of the at least one rung (fig 2),
the two rear legs are symmetrically disposed on the two sides of the at least one rung (fig 2),
each of the two front legs and a corresponding one of the two rear legs disposed on a same side of the at least one rung are pivotally connected to define a foldable structure intersecting at a preset angle (fig 2),
the armrest comprises a lateral tube (13; fig 2), two vertical tubes (3, 3; fig 2), and a lock mechanism (figs 6, 7),
the lateral tube (13) is connected to top ends of the two vertical tubes (fig 6),
the two vertical tubes (3, 3) are respectively and movably disposed in the two front legs (fig 1 vs fig 2),
the lock mechanism comprises two push rods (15; fig 7) respectively disposed in the two vertical tubes (fig 7), two pins (17) respectively disposed in the two vertical tubes (fig 7), and two pin springs (9c; fig 7),
each of the two vertical tubes comprises a through hole (opening in toggle 18 through which 17 projects; fig 7) corresponding to a corresponding one of the two pins (fig 7),
each of the two front legs (11) respectively comprises a plurality of positioning holes (111) corresponding to a corresponding one of the two pins (fig 9),
the two pin springs (9c) are respectively disposed on rear sides of the two pins (fig 7),
the two pin springs (9c) each drive a corresponding one of the two pins to be disposed in one of the plurality of positioning holes (fig 7),
when the button (6) is pressed down ([0041], [0049]): it counteracts elastic forces of the two push rod springs to drive the two push rods to move the vertical tubes and armrest downward or upward ([0041], [0049]), and
when the button (6) is released the push rod spring drives the button to move upward, and the pin extends into a corresponding one of positioning holes ([0041], [0049], [0050]).
While Wang discloses two buttons (6, 6) that when pressed drive the push rods, Wang does not disclose a button in the lateral tube in communication with the two vertical tubes, the locking mechanism comprising a link rod in the lateral rube and two push rod springs, or a bottom portion of each of the two push rods connected to a corresponding inserting rod having an inclined bottom surface to cooperate with a side wall surface of a hole in the pin.
However, Chang teaches:
the lateral tube (50, fig 2) is in communication with the two vertical tubes (40, 40; fig 2, note only one side is shown as they are identical),
the lock mechanism comprises a link rod (55,55, figure 1) disposed in the lateral tube (fig 2), and two push rod springs (S, figure 1),
the lateral tube (50) comprises an opening (52, figure 1),
the link rod (55) is disposed with a button (53; fig 1),
the two push rod springs (S) drive the two push rods (60) to move upward to enable the link rod (55) to be pressed upward to enable the button (53) to extend out of the lateral tube (50) through the opening (figure 2),
a bottom portion of each of the two push rods (60) is connected to a corresponding one of two inserting rods (70; figure 2),
the two push rod springs (S) are respectively sleeved on the two inserting rods (figure 2)
each of the two pins (each pin comprises 90-92; figure 1) comprises a corresponding one of inserting holes (u-shaped seat 90, figure 2),
a side wall of each of the inserting holes is a first inclined surface (walls of sliding grooves 91),
a bottom surface (730, figure 1) of a corresponding one of the two inserting rods (70, figure 1) is a second inclined surface (inclined surface of 730),
the first inclined surface (walls of 91) and the second inclined surface (730) cooperate with each other (figure 2),
when the button (53) is pressed down: the two inserting rods (70) contact the two pins (90-92), the two inserting rods drive the pins to retract into the vertical tubes (figure 3), and the arm rest is pulled downward or upward to drive the two push rods (60) and the armrest to move upward or downward, (figure 2 vs figure 3), and
when the button (53) is released (figure 2): the two push rod springs (S) drive the button (53) to move upward, and the two pins extend into the plurality of positioning holes (figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the lateral tube of Wang, with a button and a link rod in communication with the two vertical tubes, and cooperating angled surfaces as taught by Chang, so as to allow for smooth single-handed operation extension and retraction of the armrest, with a reasonable expectation of success, as doing so would allow for the user to continue to use their other hand for holding tools, another part of the ladder or other items on hand.
With respect to the second inclined surface being an “inclined cutting surface of the corresponding one of the two inserting rods”, as best understood, it appears the applicant may be trying to claim that the second inclined surface is formed by cutting the inserting rod. Examiner notes that this is considered product by process claim language and refers applicant to MPEP 2113 Product by Process Claims, where it is explained that the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production” and if “the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re: claim 3. Wang ‘790 also discloses: wherein the two pin springs (9c; fig 8) each drives the corresponding one of the two pins (17) to move laterally out of the through hole of a corresponding one of the two vertical tubes to be disposed in one of the plurality of positioning holes (fig 7).
Re: claim 4, Chang teaches wherein the two pushrod springs (S) each surround a corresponding one of the two inserting rods (figure 2).
Re: claim 5, Chang teaches the opening is disposed on a top portion of the lateral tube (fig 2).
Re: claim 7, Chang teaches wherein two ends of the lateral tube (50) are respectively disposed with an armrest cover (note that 50 comprises two halves, providing both a housing tube and a cover).
Re: claim 8, Chang teaches wherein the two inserting rods (70) each comprise a space for receiving a corresponding one of the two push rod springs (vertical space between 72 and 730).
Re: claim 9, Chang teaches: when the button (53) is pressed (figure 3): a lower end of second inclined surface (730) abuts an upper end of the first inclined surface (when button 53 is pushed downward the lower surface of 730 pushes downward on the upper end of 91) to enable the corresponding one of the two pins (92) to retract inward (figure 2 vs figure 3) to be separated from the plurality of positioning holes (figure 3).
Re: claim 10, Wang ‘790 disclose wherein the opening is disposed on a top portion the lateral tube (fig 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the lateral tube of Wang ‘790, with a button and a link rod in communication with the two vertical tubes, and cooperating angled surfaces as taught by Chang, so as to allow for smooth single-handed operation extension and retraction of the armrest, with a reasonable expectation of success, as doing so would allow for the user to continue to use their other hand for holding tools, another part of the ladder or other items on hand.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner recognizes applicant’s amendments to the specification in attempt to overcome the previous Objections and New Matter issues, however the amendments to both the specification and claims actually created further issues that need to be addressed.
With respect to the amendments to claim 1, and the second inclined surface being an “inclined cutting surface of the corresponding one of the two inserting rods”, examiner again points out that, not only does this appear to be new matter but it also appears to be product by process claim language. As best understood, the applicant may be trying to claim that the second inclined surface is formed by cutting the inserting rod. Examiner notes that this is considered product by process claim language and refers applicant to MPEP 2113 Product by Process Claims, where it is explained that the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production” and if “the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Since the inclined surface of Chang can be formed by cutting, molding, or other means, and the end result is still an inclined surface, the prior art is still applicable.
For at least these reasons the remarks are not found persuasive the claims remain rejected as advanced above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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.
COLLEEN M. CHAVCHAVADZE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634