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 § 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, 8-9, 12-13 and 22 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. With respect to claim 1, the examiner does not see where in the original disclosure the articulated arms 140a 140b are disclosed as “having sufficient structural rigidity”.
Applicant should either show where there is support for this newly added limitation, or cancel the limitation.
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, 8-9, 12 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margolies (US 4,798,262) in view of Zhang (CN 104295226).
Margolies discloses:
1. A stabilizer system (fig 1, see below) for use with at least one ladder tube of a collapsible ladder (capable of attachment to) that includes at least two ladder sections, each ladder section having two ladder tubes arranged parallel to each other and interconnected by a rung to form the respective ladder section, and each ladder tube being telescopically inserted into a ladder tube of a lower ladder section to form the collapsible ladder, wherein the ladder tubes of a lower most ladder section each are arranged with an end portion (note that only the stabilizer system is claimed, and claimed “for use with” a ladder; the stabilizer system of Margolies is capable of being used with a ladder as described above), the stabilizer system (figure 1) comprising:
two elongated portions (20, 22, figure 1), wherein each elongated portion has a first part (upper end of 20, 22 with connectors 27, 27’; figure 1) and a second part (lower section of 20, 22), the first part is pivotally connected to the ladder (@27, 27’) such that each elongated portion is pivotally movable between a retracted position (figure 4) and a deployed position (figure 1);
at least two articulated arms (30, 32, figure 1), each articulated arm connecting the second part of a respective elongated portion to a ladder leg (figure 1) wherein each articulated arm (30, 32) has a body (figure 1) having sufficient structural rigidity to transmit a downward compressive force from a user’s foot to pivot downwards (arms 30, 32 are part of the ladder support, built to support the weight of a ladder and user thereon), thereby moving the respective elongated portion from the retracted position (figure 4) toward the deployed position (figure 1; NOTE: the articulated arms of Margolies are configured to be manipulated by a user’s foot in the same manner as the articulated arms of the applicant’s; wherein a user would first push/kick an end of the elongated portions out away from the ladder to expose the articulated arms, and then push down on the arms to spread the components to the deployed position);
wherein the second part of each of the elongated portions (20, 22) has an end portion (21, 23, figure 1);
wherein in the deployed position (fig 1) the end portions (21, 23) of the elongated portions (20, 22) are in contact with a support surface; and
wherein in the retracted position (fig 4), each elongated portion (20,22) is parallel to the respective ladder tubes (fig 4) and the end portions (21, 23) of the elongated portions (20, 22) are lower than a lowermost portion of the ladder (figure 4), such that the end portions (21, 23) of the elongated portions are in contact with the support surface and the end portions of the ladder tubes are spaced apart from the support surface (figure 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
688
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
680
301
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Margolies does not disclose at least two first upper bracket sections each arranged to receive a respective ladder tube, at least two second, lower, bracket sections each arranged to receive the respective ladder tubes, the first part pivotally connected to a respective one of the at least two first upper bracket sections, each articulated arm connecting the second part of the respective elongated portion to an attachment member of a respective one of the at least two second lower bracket sections, or wherein in the deployed position the end portions of the ladder tubes are in contact with a support surface.
However, Zhang teach:
at least two first, upper, bracket sections (upper 207s, fig 7) each arranged to receive a respective ladder tube (fig 1),
at least two second, lower, bracket sections (lower 207s, figure 2) each arranged to receive the respective ladder tubes (figure 1), wherein the at least two second, lower, bracket sections are arranged below the at least two first, upper, bracket sections (figure 2);
wherein the first part (upper end of elongated portions 201) is pivotally connected (via 202; fig 2) to a respective one of the at least at least two first, upper, bracket sections (fig 2),
each articulated arm (203, figure 2) connecting second part (lower end of elongated portions 201) of a respective elongated portion (201) to an attachment member (@C, figure 2) of a respective one of the at least two second, lower, bracket sections (lower 207); and
when in the deployed position (figure 1), the end portions (201b, fig 2) of the elongated portions (201) and the end portions of the ladder tubes (unnumbered wheels on lowermost ladder section) are in contact with a support surface (figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention to construct the stabilizer system of Margolies with at least two first upper bracket sections connecting the elongated sections to respective ladder tubes; at least two second lower bracket sections connecting the second part of the elongated portions and articulated arms to a respective ladder tube, and wherein in the deployed position the end portions of the ladder tubes are in contact with a support surface; all as taught by Zhang., so as to provide a more stable footprint by including the ladder end portions in stabilizing the ladder on the supporting surface, and a more versatile stabilizer system of the inclusion of the brackets, allowing for easy attachment/retrofitting of the stabilizer system to a ladder without having to drill holes for connecting pins (i.e. 27, 30 of Margolies) through a ladder leg.
Margolies also discloses:
8. The stabilizer system according to claim 1, wherein the elongated portions (3) each has a length that is longer than the length of one ladder section (the applicant is reminded that the ladder itself is not being claimed, only the stabilizer for use with a ladder; Margolies discloses the elongated portions 20, 22 to each have a length longer than the length of the ladder tube length between the rungs, which would equate to one section as described in the preamble).
9. The stabilizer system according to claim 1, wherein in the retracted position (fig 4), the elongated portions (20, 22) are arranged in a same plane as a longitudinal direction of the rungs of the ladder (fig 4).
Re: claim 22, Margolies does not teach telescoping elongated portions. However, Zhang teaches: wherein the first part of each elongated portion (upper ends of 201) has a smaller outer diameter than an inner diameter of the second part (see telescoping sections, figure 2); and wherein the first part is telescopically inserted into the second part to form a collapsible elongated portion (see figure 2 expanded, and figure 7 collapsed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention to construct the elongated portions of Margolies to be telescopic as taught by Zhang., so as to provide a more flexible stabilizer system, readily adaptable to varying terrain, therefore providing a more stable footprint in being able to adjust the length of the stabilizer system as needed.
Re: claim 12, Zhang teaches: a collapsible ladder (300) comprising:
several ladder sections (ladder sections of ladder 300; fig 1), each ladder section having two ladder tubes (fig 1) arranged parallel to each other and interconnected by a rung (fig 1) to form the respective ladder section (fig 1), each ladder tube being telescopically inserted into a ladder tube of a lower section (fig 8) to form a collapsible ladder (fig 8); and Margolies in view of Zhang teaches: a stabilizer system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 addressed above).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson (US 2008/0164097) in view of Margolies (US 4,798,262) and Zhang. (CN 104295226).
Eriksson discloses: a collapsible step ladder (fig 2) comprising:
a first ladder leg (2; fig 3) and a second ladder leg (3; fig 3), that are hingedly connected (@ 5; fig 3) to each other at one end (fig 3), each of the ladder legs (2, 3) including several ladder sections (4a-e; fig 3), each ladder section having two ladder tubes (fig 2) arranged parallel to each other (fig 2) and interconnected by a rung (fig 2) to form the respective ladder section (fig 2), each ladder tube being telescopically inserted into a ladder tube of a lower section (Abstract) to form a collapsible ladder (fig 1). Eriksson does not disclose a ladder stabilizer, specifically a ladder stabilizer according to claim 1.
However, Margolies in view of Zhang teaches a stabilizer system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 addressed above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the collapsible step ladder of Eriksson with a stabilizer, as taught by Margolies in view of Zhang., so as to provide additional safety and stability to the ladder and user, in varying work environments and terrain.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the primary reference of Margolies fails to disclose the amended limitation added to claim 1: “wherein each articulated arm has a body having sufficient structural rigidity to transmit a downward compressive force from a user’s foot to pivot downwards”. Applicant’s argument is based on their assumption that the articulated arms (30, 32) of Margolies are made of a flexible, non-rigid material because they are identified by the name “straps”. As explained in the interview of April 14, 2026, while the elements 30, 32 are referred to as straps, that does not inherently mean they are flexible. Elements like that of 30, 32 in Margolies are known by many names, including, but not limited to spreaders, linkages, limiting mechanisms, or straps.
As the straps of Margolies serve the same function as the applicants (limiting the outward movement of the elongated outrigger portions), and there is no evidence that they are "flexible", the remarks are not found persuasive.
Examiner also points out that nowhere in the applicant’s own disclosure are the two articulated arms disclosed as “having sufficient structural rigidity”; and so once again examiner does not see any difference between the articulated arms 30, 32 of the prior art in the articulated arms 140a, 140b of applicant’s disclosure; and maintained the prior art rejection.
Next, applicant argues that the deployment method is absent from the disclosure of Margolies and that the examiner has imported its operational method in hindsight. This argument is not found persuasive for the primary reason that the limitation applicant is arguing is intended use, and the prior art is capable of functioning and being used in the manner claimed. Applicant is reminded claim 1 is directed to the stabilizer system (apparatus) and not a method, and the limitation of use, is just that -intended use.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For at least these reasons applicant’s remarks are not found persuasive in 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 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