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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 2, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 61 and 63-71 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim language is inconsistent, switching back and forth between referring to “the ladder frame” and “the ladder”.
Claims 63-71 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of claims 63-71 does not match that of independent claim 61.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 61 and 63-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shuch et al. (US 2016/0047167).
Shuch et al. discloses:
61. A fall control ladder (75, figure 1, see below), comprising:
a ladder frame having two stiles (75a, 75b; figure 12) and a plurality of rungs or steps (figure 1);
a tensioner (210, figure 3B) detachably mounted to the ladder towards a bottom end of the ladder frame (tensioner 210 is stored in bag 202, as seen in figure 3A, of assembly 200 which is mounted to the ladder toward a bottom end of the ladder as seen in figure 24 below) at a height accessible from the ground on which the ladder is supported (figures 26 & 32);
PNG
media_image1.png
405
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a mount (406; figure 13) mounted to the ladder (by straps 402,404; figure 13) towards a top end of the ladder (figure 13);
a cable (50, figure 1) that extends from the tensioner (stored in 200; figure 1) and over the mount (figure 38) in a looped configuration (figures 1 and 39); and
an arrestor (170, figure 34) movably engaged with the cable (function/operation of rope grab) for coupling a user to the cable (figure 34),
wherein the tensioner (210) has a locked configuration (figure 3B) for holding tension on the cable to support a weight of the user and an open configuration (figure 3C) for allowing the cable (50) to pass through the tensioner (figure 3C; when handle 210b is grasped, [0054]);
wherein in the event of a fall (figure 40) an operator (155, figure 41) on the ground (figure 41) can release the cable (50) in a controlled manner through the tensioner (210) to bring the user via the arrestor back towards the ground ([0054] and figure 45); and
wherein the cable (50) comprises (i) a fixed end (in lifeline supply assembly 120) securable to at least one selected from the group consisting of the tensioner and the ladder (figure 24 & see below) and (ii) a free end that passes through the tensioner (210) to vary the length of cable in the fall control system (fig 3C).
PNG
media_image2.png
374
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(see additional images on following page)
PNG
media_image3.png
718
383
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
454
188
media_image4.png
Greyscale
63. wherein the arrestor (170) is couplable with a safety harness (160; fig 34) for securing the user therein (figure 34).
64. wherein the arrestor (170) provides an active configuration where the arrestor locks onto the cable and thereby holds the user at a fixed point on the cable (figure 41), and an inactive configuration (figure 35) where the arrestor can slide freely along the cable (figure 35).
65. wherein the tensioner (210) is configured to receive and capture a mid-section of the cable (50) between an inlet and an outlet of the tensioner (figure 3B).
66. wherein the ladder is an extendable ladder (figure 34).
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) 67-71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuch et al. as applied to claim 61 above, and further in view of Phillips (GB 2069579).
While Shuch et al. discloses a tethering system (300, figure 1) for tethering to an anchor (80, figure 1), they do not disclose a tether system comprising a brake mounted towards an upper end of the ladder, a coupling mounted towards an end of the ladder, and a cord extending from the coupling to the brake via the anchor.
However, Phillips teaches:
67. further comprising a tether system (fig 1) for tethering to an anchor (location points on the walls that the snap hooks attach to), comprising:
a brake (rope jamb block with vee shaped jaw with toothing; fig 1) mounted towards an upper end of the ladder (while shown in figure 1 as near the bottom of the ladder, this is merely a matter of orientation and one could simple use the assembly shown in figure 1 in an inverted position as there are no feet or headers on the ladder that would prevent such use; see below);
a coupling (metal eye top fixing; fig 1) mounted towards a bottom end of the ladder (see explanation above regarding orientation and image below); and
a cord (rope; fig 1) extending from the coupling to the brake via the anchor (fig 1; snap hooks attach to wall anchors),
wherein the brake has an operative configuration for holding tension on the cord against the anchor (when locking assembly jaw is in locked configuration) and an inoperative configuration allowing the cord to pass through the brake (when locking assembly jaw is not locked).
(image inserted on next page)
PNG
media_image5.png
780
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to provide the ladder of Shuch et al. with the tether system for tethering to an anchor, as taught by Phillips, so as to provide greater versatility to the ladder system, allowing it to connect to multiple anchor points on the supporting structure, or on a structure nearby the supporting structure (adjacent trees/posts, buildings etc. ) allowing connection to any anchor point between the ground and top end of the ladder (as the snap hook of Phillips can be positioned anywhere along the rope for connecting to an anchor point), offering users greater versatility and therefore added security by offering stabilization in a number of different environments where multiple anchor points may be needed.
With respect to the tethering system, Phillips also teaches:
68. wherein the brake in the operative configuration tensions the cord against the anchor (fig 1), such that a first force is applied by the cord pulling the ladder toward the anchor (upper stretch of rope) and a second force is applied pulling the ladder toward the ground on which the ladder is supported (lower stretch of rope; note also that this is entirely dependent upon the position of the anchor, which is not actually positively claimed, and the position of the brake and coupling along the ladder).
69. The ladder of claim 68, wherein the first force acts in a substantially horizontal direction and the second force acts in a substantially vertical direction (again, this is dependent upon the position of the anchor, which is not actually positively claimed, and the position of the brake and coupling along the ladder).
70. The ladder of claim 67, wherein the brake (rope jamb) provides an inlet (top rope guide of rope jamb; fig 1) for receiving the cord and an outlet (lower rope guide; fig 1) by which a free end of the cord exits the brake (fig 1), such that a force applied to the free end of the cord tensions the cord against the anchor, the tension on the cord being maintained by the brake (operation of rope jamb with vee shaped jaw with toothing).
71. The ladder of claim 67, wherein the brake (rope jamb) comprises an actuator (jaw) for selecting between the operative configuration (locked/closed jaw) and the inoperative (unlocked/opened jaw) configuration of the brake.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 2nd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Following a Notice of Allowance mailed April 7th,2026, the applicant filed an RCE with amendments to the claims on July 2, 2026. The amendments significantly broadened the independent claim (i.e. changing “rigidly fixed” to “detachably mounted” and broadening the language with respect to the fixed end of the cable), returning the claims to form that was previously rejected. As a result, the claims are no longer in allowable condition and have been rejection by prior art 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
Prosecution Insights