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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed August 14, 2025. The application has been updated accordingly.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The newly added claim limitation recites “being formed” which seems to indicate this is a method step. If that is not the intent of the applicant then “being formed” should be modified to read “is formed” to align the recitation with being an apparatus claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 are 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 recites the limitation "wherein the included angle” in the newly added claim limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
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, 3-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (10,612,304) hereinafter Fischer, in view of Nafziger et al. (2014/0261105) hereinafter Nafziger.
Fischer discloses:
Claim 1: A multifunction ladder structure, comprising:
a first ladder frame (Fig. 1), includes:
a top rod (Fig. 1; 12), which is a sturdy U-shaped tube (Fig. 1; 12 with 13 left and right);
two first frame tubes (Fig. 1; 11 left and right), each being fixed firmly on one end to a different end of said top rod (Fig. 1; each 11 are fixed to 12 via 13 left and right), and contains a tube opening on the other end (Fig. 1; at 37 left and right, Col. 5, Lines 44-46-9);
at least one first stepping unit (Fig. 1; 10), being connected firmly in between and joining said two first frame tubes (Fig. 1; 10 is depicted as fixed to and joining each 11); and
two first buckling units (Fig. 2; 110), each being fixed firmly on one said first frame tube (Fig. 2; 11);
a second ladder frame (Fig. 1; 300 left and right), includes:
two second frame tubes (Fig. 1; 30 left and right), being sturdy tubes set in relative and next to said first frame tubes (Fig. 1; 30 and 11 left and right are set relative and next to one another), and contains a tube opening on one end (Fig. 1; nearest 301 left and right);
two second buckling units (Fig. 1; 33), each being fixed in relative to a said first buckling unit and firmly on one said second frame tube (Fig. 1; 33, Col. 5, Lines 11-12); and
at least one stepping tube (Fig. 1; 31), being a sturdy tube connected firmly in between and joining said two second frame tubes (Fig. 1; 31 is depicted as firmly joining 30 left and right); and
a pair of combining assemblies (Fig. 1; pivot bearings at 36 left and right, Col. 4, Lines 27-30), each being fixedly connected to a meeting position of the top rod and a first frame tube (Fig. 1; pivot bearings at 36 is fixedly connected where 12/13 meet with 11), wherein the two combining assemblies combine the second ladder frame to the first ladder frame (Fig. 1; 36 combine each 11 with each 30);
wherein the included angle between the two first frame tubes being less than 5 degrees (Fig. 1; 11 left and right are parallel with one another and, as such, have an included angle of zero degrees which is less than 5 degrees); and
a positioning protrusion (Fig. 9; 35).
but fails to disclose wherein a positioning protrusion being formed on each of the foot rods.
However, Nafziger discloses a positioning protrusion (Fig. 3; 40).
Therefore, 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 positioning protrusion of Fischer with the positioning protrusion, as taught by Nafziger, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a means of adjustment while preventing the positioning protrusion from coming loose or falling out.
Claim 3: Fischer discloses the multifunction ladder structure according to claim 1, further includes plural foot rods (Fig. 10; 37 and 301), wherein each foot rod is being placed in one said first frame tube or in one said second frame tube through a said tube opening.
Claim 4: Fischer discloses the multifunction ladder structure according to claim 3, wherein each foot rod includes a positioning protrusion (Fig. 9; 35 Col. 4, Lines 40-42 and 39, Col. 5, Lines 62-67), and plural positioning holes corresponding to the positioning protrusion are being formed on each said first frame tube and each said second frame tube (Fig. 9; 35 Col. 4, Lines 40-42 and 39, Col. 5, Lines 62-67).
Claim 5: Fischer discloses the multifunction ladder structure according to claim 1, wherein the second ladder frame is being rotating or securely fixed at the combining assemblies and fixedly connected to the first ladder frame by the combining assemblies (Fig. 1; via pivot bearing, Col. 4, Lines 27-30).
Claim 6: Fischer discloses the multifunction ladder structure according to claim 1, wherein the second ladder frame is being securely fixed at the combining assemblies (Fig. 1; via pivot bearing, Col. 4, Lines 27-30) and forms a tire ladder together with the first ladder frame (Fig. 9; with arms 37 extended the ladder can be used as a tire ladder).
Claim 7: Fischer discloses the multifunction ladder structure according to claim 1, wherein the second ladder frame is being securely fixed at the combining assemblies and forms an A-shaped ladder together with the first ladder frame (Fig. 9; with arms 37 of the second ladder frame extended the ladder forms an A-shaped ladder).
Claim 9: Fischer discloses the multifunction ladder structure according to claim 1, further includes a second stepping unit formed across the U-shaped top rod (Fig. 1; 12 can be used as a stepping unit).
Claim 10: Fischer discloses the multifunction ladder structure according to claim 1, wherein one first frame tube is a bending extension to a direction extended from one end of the top rod, and the other first frame tube is a bending extension to the same direction extended from the other end of the top rod (Fig. 1; 12 with 13 left and right connecting with 11 left and right).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (10,612,304) hereinafter Fischer, in view of Nafziger et al. (2014/0261105) hereinafter Nafziger, further in view of Embretsen (2006/0157301).
Claim 2: Fischer and Nafziger disclose the multifunction ladder structure according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a supporting rod further being connected at the joints of the top rod and the two first frame tubes.
However, Embretsen discloses a supporting rod (Fig. 6; 9).
Therefore, 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 ladder structure of Fischer to include the supporting rod, as taught by Embretsen, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide additional stability and rigidity to the ladder structure.
Thus, in combination Fischer and Embretsen disclose the supporting rod, of Embretsen being connected at the joints of the top rod and the two first frame tubes, of Fischer.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (10,612,304) hereinafter Fischer, in view of Nafziger et al. (2014/0261105) hereinafter Nafziger, further in view of Conger (5,456,479).
Claim 8: Fischer and Nafziger disclose the multifunction ladder structure according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein an adjustable band further being formed across the first frame tubes, wherein one end of the adjustable band is fixedly attached to one first frame tube and the other end of the adjustable band is fixedly attached to the other first frame tube.
However, Conger discloses an adjustable band (Fig. 3; 70).
Therefore, 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 ladder assembly of Fischer to include the adjustable strap, as taught by Conger, in order to secure the ladder assembly to a tire and keep it in place while in use when the ladder is being used as a tire ladder.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, regarding the positioning protrusion being formed on each of the foot rods, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additionally, applicant's arguments filed August 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the prior art rejections, applicant argues that the primary reference of Fischer fails to disclose the same features and elements as in the amended claimed invention. This argument is not found persuasive because as the examiner has detailed above left and right frame tubes of Fischer are parallel with one another and, as such, have an included angle of zero degrees which is less than 5 degrees, which meet the newly amended claim limitation.
For at least these reasons applicant’s remarks are not found persuasive and the claims remain rejected as advanced above.
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 Kathleen M. McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-9139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/Kathleen M. McFarland/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Kathleen M. McFarland
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635