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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. As of the date of this application, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 09/03/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 3-5, 16, and 18 have been amended; Claims 6-7 have been canceled; No claims have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 09/03/2025 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that: “Applicant submits that the amendment to claim 19 overcomes the Office Action's rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn for at least this reason”. – Claim 19 has not been directly amended and the amendment to independent claim 16, while establishing that the at least two steps include a first step, do not rectify the issue with claim 19 having an interpretation of at least two steps being attached at the same position on the side rails, which is not possible. As such, the rejection stands.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites “wherein the first cylindrical aperture has and the second cylindrical aperture have”. This should read “wherein the first cylindrical aperture and the second cylindrical aperture have” (emphasis added), i.e. remove “has”. 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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites “the at least two steps are attached to each of the two side rails at a location where each of at least two extension frame tubes is attached to the respective one of the two mainframe tubes”. – It is unclear how two steps can be attached at the same location.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrade (BR 202014019380) in view of Morral Gispert (US 2005/0082117).
In regards to Claim 1, Andrade discloses a packable ladder comprising: two main frame tubes (Andrade: Fig. 1-4; 2), each main frame tube having a curved end (Andrade: Fig. 1-4; 11); at least two steps (Andrade: Fig. 1-6; 3), each step having a first end portion and a second end portion disposed at opposite ends thereof, wherein the first end portion includes a first cylindrical aperture (Andrade: Fig. 5-6; 4) and the second end portion includes a second cylindrical aperture (Andrade: Fig. 5-6; 4), wherein a first step of the at least two steps is secured to one or both of a first of the two main frame tubes via insertion of one or both of the first of the two main frame tubes such that the first cylindrical aperture substantially encloses one or both of the first of the two main frame tubes, wherein the first step of the at least two steps is secured to one or both of a second of the two main frame tubes via insertion of one or both of the second of the two main frame tubes such that the second cylindrical aperture substantially encloses one or both of the second of the two main frame tubes (Andrade: Fig. 1-4; [0010]); and wherein each of the first cylindrical aperture and the second cylindrical aperture include a through hole (Andrade: Fig. 5-6; 6) configured to receive a fastener extending therethrough and through one of the two main frame tubes.
Andrade fails to disclose each main frame tube having an attachable end; two extension frame tubes, each extension frame tube configured to be attached to the attachable end of each main frame tube, wherein each extension frame tube has a protruding portion and a body portion, the protruding portion having a smaller cross-sectional perimeter than the body portion and each of the two main frame tubes; wherein a first step of the at least two steps is secured to one or both of a first of the two main frame tubes and a first of the two extension frame tubes; and wherein the first step of the at least two steps is secured to one or both of a second of the two main frame tubes and a second of the two extension frame tubes. However, Morral Gispert teaches two main frame tubes (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1-3; 4), each main frame tube having a curved end (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1-3; 14, 15) and an attachable end (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1-2; 7) opposite to the curved end; two extension frame tubes (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1-2; 4), each extension frame tube configured to be attached to the attachable end of each main frame tube, wherein each extension frame tube has a protruding portion (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1-2; 8) and a body portion, the protruding portion having a smaller cross-sectional perimeter than the body portion and each of the two main frame tubes; wherein a first step (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1-3; 3) of the at least two steps is secured to one or both of a first of the two main frame tubes and a first of the two extension frame tubes via insertion of one or both of the first of the two main frame tubes and the first of the two extension frame tubes; and wherein the first step of the at least two steps is secured to one or both of a second of the two main frame tubes and a second of the two extension frame tubes via insertion of one or both of the second of the two main frame tubes and the second of the two extension frame tubes (Morral Gispert: [0011]-[0013]); and the step first step including a through hole configured to receive a fastener extending therethrough and through both of one of the two main frame tubes and one of the two extension frame tubes.
Andrade and Morral Gispert are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. ladder assemblies. 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 tube in Andrade with the separable connection taught by Morral Gispert, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a set of components having a length smaller than that of the assembled ladder, thereby reducing the required storage space and the size and cost of any packaging (Morral Gispert: [0006]).
In regards to Claim 4, Andrade, as modified, teaches the packable ladder of claim 1, wherein the through hole (Andrade: Fig. 5-6; 6) is oriented substantially perpendicularly to a top surface of the at least two steps (Andrade: Fig. 1-6; 3).
In regards to Claim 5, Andrade, as modified, teaches the packable ladder of claim 4, wherein the first cylindrical aperture (Andrade: Fig. 5-6; 4) has and the second cylindrical aperture (Andrade: Fig. 5-6; 4) have a first longitudinal axis generally perpendicular to each step (Andrade: Fig. 1-6; 3).
In regards to Claim 8, Andrade, as modified, teaches the packable ladder of claim 1, wherein the curved end (Andrade: Fig. 1-4; 11) of each of the two main frame tubes are shaped to be hooked (i) into an aperture, (ii) around a beam, (iii) onto a surface, or (iv) any combination thereof.
In regards to Claim 10, Andrade, as modified, teaches the packable ladder of claim 1, wherein each step (Andrade: Fig. 1-6; 3) has a top surface and a bottom space under the top surface.
In regards to Claim 16, Andrade discloses a method of assembling a packable ladder, the method comprising: forming each of two side rails (Andrade: Fig. 1-4; 2), wherein the two side rails include a first side rail and a second side rail; and attaching at least two steps (Andrade: Fig. 1-6; 3) to the two side rails at a first end portion and a second end portion of each step, wherein the at least two steps include a first step, wherein the first step includes the first end portion and the second end portion, wherein the first end portion includes a first cylindrical aperture (Andrade: Fig. 5-6; 4) and the second end portion includes a second cylindrical portion (Andrade: Fig. 5-6; 4), wherein the first step is attached to the first side rail via insertion of the first side rail through the first cylindrical aperture such that the first cylindrical aperture substantially encloses the first side rail, wherein the first step is attached to the second side rail via insertion of the second side rail through the second cylindrical aperture such that the second cylindrical aperture substantially encloses the second side rail (Andrade: Fig. 1-4; [0010]), and wherein the first cylindrical aperture includes a first through hole (Andrade: Fig. 5-6; 6) configured to receive a fastener extending therethrough and through the first side rail, and wherein the second cylindrical aperture includes a second through hole (Andrade: Fig. 5-6; 6) configured to receive a fastener therethrough and through the second side rail.
Andrade fails to disclose forming each of two side rails by attaching each of two main frame tubes to one or more extension frame tubes. However, Morral Gispert teaches forming each of two side rails (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1-3; 4, 5) by attaching each of two main frame tubes (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1-3; 4) to one or more extension frame tubes (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1-3; 5). [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation and/or rationale.]
In regards to Claim 17, Andrade, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the forming each of two side rails further comprises: inserting a protruding portion (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1-2; 8) of each of two extension frame tubes into an attachable end (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1-2; 7) of each of the two main frame tubes, the protruding portion having a smaller cross-sectional perimeter than each of the two main frame tubes; aligning holes (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1-2; 9) at opposite ends along respective perimetric surfaces of the protruding portion and each of the two main frame tubes; and attaching each of the two extension frame tubes (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1-2; 5) to the respective one of the two main frame tubes using a fastener.
Andrade fails to disclose using a fastener and a nut. However, Morral Gispert teaches attaching each of the two extension frame tubes (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1-2; 5) to the respective one of the two main frame tubes using a fastener (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1; 10) and a nut (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1; 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure the assembly together in Andrade with fasteners and nuts, as taught by Morral Gispert, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to well as providing a standard nut for assembly with the fasteners (Morral Gispert: [0014]), thereby removing the need to thread holes in the tubes and lowering manufacturing costs as a result. [Note: The numbering in Fig. 1 of Morral Gispert has been used and not the incorrect numbering in the specification.
In regards to Claim 18, Andrade, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the attaching at least two steps to the two side rails further comprises: a first fastener through the first through hole (Andrade: Fig. 5-6; 6) and the first side rail and second fastener through the second through hole (Andrade: Fig. 5-6; 6) and second side rail;
Andrade fails to disclose tightening the first fastener against a first nut and the second fastener against a second nut. However, Morral Gispert teaches tightening a first fastener (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1; 10) against a first nut (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1; 13) and a second fastener (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1; 10) against a second nut (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1; 13).
In regards to Claim 19, Andrade, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the at least two steps (Andrade: Fig. 1-6; 3) are attached to each of the two side rails at a location where each of at least two extension frame tubes (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1-3; 5) is attached to the respective one of the two mainframe tubes (Morral Gispert: Fig. 1-3; 4).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrade (BR 202014019380) in view of Morral Gispert (US 2005/0082117) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lang (FR 2 833 028).
In regards to Claim 3, Andrade, as modified, teaches the packable ladder of claim 1, but fails to disclose the two extension frame tubes are configured to be attached to another extension frame tube at an end opposite to an end attached to the main frame tube.
However, Lang teaches two extension frame tubes (Lang: Fig. 1-3; 1, 10) that are configured to be attached to another extension frame tube at an end opposite to an end (Lang: Fig. 3; 5) attached to a main frame tube.
Andrade and Lang are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. ladder assemblies. 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 opposite end of the tubes of Andrade with the ends from Lang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means of further increasing the working height of the ladder, thereby increasing the utility of the ladder (Lang: Pg. 1, Ln. 7-16).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrade (BR 202014019380) in view of Morral Gispert (US 2005/0082117) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Forbis et al. (US 2017/0191262).
In regards to Claim 9, Andrade, as modified, teaches the packable ladder of claim 1, but fails to disclose the two main frame tubes and the two extension frame tubes are formed from a galvanized and powder-coated steel.
However, Forbis teaches frame tubes are formed from a galvanized and powder-coated steel (Forbis: [0077]).
Andrade and Forbis are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. ladder assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the material taught by Forbis to form the tubes of Andrade, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a material for the tubes that is well adapted to high humidity use cases (Forbis: [0077]), thereby lowering the risk of rust damage.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrade (BR 202014019380) in view of Morral Gispert (US 2005/0082117) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patterson et al (US 3,997,027).
Regarding Claim 11, Andrade, as modified, teaches the packable ladder of claim 1, but fails to disclose each step being formed from a high- density polyethylene (HDPE) material.
However, Patterson teaches steps being formed from a high- density polyethylene (HDPE) material (Patterson: Col. 2, Ln. 54-56).
Andrade and Patterson are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. ladder assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the steps in Andrade form the material taught by Patterson, with a reasonable expectation of success (Patterson: Col. 2, Ln. 54-56), in order to provide a specific plastic material to form the rungs, thereby enabling the rungs to be easily manufactured.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrade (BR 202014019380) in view of Morral Gispert (US 2005/0082117) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saputo et al. (US 6,755,281).
Regarding Claim 12, Andrade, as modified, teaches the packable ladder of claim 10, but fails to explicitly disclose a top surface that has a chamfered edge around a perimeter thereof.
However, Saputo teaches a top surface (Saputo: Fig. 15; 176) that has a chamfered edge around a perimeter thereof.
Andrade and Saputo are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. ladder assemblies. 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 top surface in Andrade with the chamfered edge from Saputo, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to decrease the sharp edges and corners of the assembly, thereby lowering the risk of injury to a user (Saputo: Col. 10, Ln. 55-57).
Claims 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrade (BR 202014019380) in view of Morral Gispert (US 2005/0082117) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Orscheln et al. (US 2018/0044985).
Regarding Claim 13, Andrade, as modified, teaches the packable ladder of claim 10, but fails to disclose a top surface that is sloped from a rear side to a front side thereof.
However, Orscheln teaches a top surface (Orscheln: Fig. 11; 121) that is sloped from a rear side to a front side thereof.
Andrade and Orscheln are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. ladder assemblies. 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 top surface in Andrade with the top surface from Orscheln, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a top surface with a structure that allows for easier foot entry and slip-resistance (Orscheln: [00127], [00129]).
Regarding Claim 14, Andrade, as modified, teaches the packable ladder of claim 10, but fails to disclose a top surface further comprising (i) a textured surface, (ii) a ribbed surface, (iii) a padding layer, or (iv) any combination thereof, for providing additional grip to human feet.
However, Orscheln teaches a top surface (Orscheln: Fig. 11; 121) further comprising (i) a textured surface, (ii) a ribbed surface (Orscheln: Fig. 11; 123, 125), (iii) a padding layer, or (iv) any combination thereof, for providing additional grip to human feet. [Note: See the rejection of claim 13 for motivation.]
Regarding Claim 20, Andrade, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16, but fails to explicitly disclose providing additional grip for human feet on atop surface of each of the at least two steps by (i) a textured surface, (ii) a ribbed surface, (iii) a padding layer, or (iv) any combination thereof.
However, Broyles teaches providing additional grip for human feet on a top surface (Orscheln: Fig. 11; 121) of each of at least two steps by (i) a textured surface, (ii) a ribbed surface (Orscheln: Fig. 11; 121), (iii) a padding layer, or (iv) any combination thereof. [Note: See the rejection of claim 13 for motivation.]
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrade (BR 202014019380) in view of Morral Gispert (US 2005/0082117) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olsen (US 5,152,245).
Regarding Claim 15, Andrade, as modified, teaches the packable ladder of claim 1, but fails to disclose each step has a bright fluorescent color for enhanced visibility.
However, Olsen teaches steps having a bright fluorescent color for enhanced visibility (Olsen: Col. 2, Ln. 34-35).
Andrade and Olsen are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. ladder assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dye the steps in Andrade with the color from Olsen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a bright visible color for the steps, thereby improving the safety of the assembly (Olsen: Col. 2, Ln. 34-35).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
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 Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached on (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631