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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 18, 2025 has been entered.
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 is configured to pivot downwards upon application of a downward force by a user’s foot 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 November 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the primary reference of Margolies fails to disclose:
1. A dual-bracket system with distinct first, upper, bracket sections and second, lower, bracket sections;
2. A specific linkage wherein the first part of each elongated portion is pivotally connected to a respective upper bracket, while in articulated arm connects the second part of the elongated portion to a respective lower bracket; and
3. The unique deployment mechanism wherein each articulated arm is configured to pivot downwards upon application of the downward force by a user’s foot, thereby moving the respective elongated portion from the retracted position toward the deployed position.
In response to argument 1, examiner notes that Margolies was not cited for teaching upper and/or lower bracket sections, and that secondary reference Zhang was referenced for the teaching of the bracket system.
In response to argument 2, examiner points out that the elongated portions (20, 21) of Margolies do in fact have a first part (upper section @27, 27’), and a second part (lower sections of 20, 21), wherein the first part is pivotally connected to a ladder leg, and, in articulated arm (30, 32) connects the second part of the elongated portion to a lower section of the ladder leg. The combination of Margolies as modified by Zhang, makes obvious to inclusion of the brackets at the upper pivotal connection and articulated arm connection, as explained in the rejections above.
As for argument 3, examiner notes that the articulated arms (30, 32) 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 (20, 22) 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.
Applicant next argues that Margolies provides no articulated arms and no mechanism for the foot-actuating deployment. However, as advanced in the above rejection, Margolies does in fact teach articulated arms 30, 32, wherein the arms are manipulable in the same foot-actuated manner as the applicant’s (see above explanation).
With respect to applicant’s arguments against the secondary reference of Zhang, and the manual operation, examiner notes these arguments are not persuasive for couple of reasons. First of all, applicant points to paragraphs [0039] of Zhang to argue that linkages are pushed upward and collapsed, as opposed to the applicant linkages that are pushed downward. Examiner points out that the portions of [0039] discussing the pushing upward of 201 and collapsing of linkages is with respect to the folding in/collapsing of the stabilizer, not the deployment of the stabilizer. Additionally, examiner notes that Margolies is cited for disclosing the argues features and operation, as advanced in the above rejection.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments against Zhang not teaching the “second part” of the elongated portion connected to a lower bracket, by an articulated arm, examiner again refers to the above rejection, where it is explained Margolies discloses an articulated arm including a second part of the elongated portion and its connection to a ladder, with Zhang further teaching the introduction of a second, lower bracket for connecting the articulated arm to a ladder.
For at least these reasons applicant’s remarks are not found persuasive in 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
Prosecution Insights