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 Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to independent claim 1, while the claim is identified as “Currently Amended” the amendments are not identified by underlining the added subject matter, as required by 37 CFR 1.121(c) [see below]. For purposes of clarity, examiner is providing a marked-up version of claim 1 below to identify the subject matter added in the amendments of 9/29/25.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
37 CFR 1.121(c) states:
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
With respect to claim 3, line 6, it appears that “a sliding bracket” should be “the sliding bracket” as the sliding bracket is first set forth in line 2 of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2 and 4 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 all claim a ladder toolkit combination not described in the original specification. To further clarify, claims 1 and 2 were previously directed to the integral and nonremovable toolkit embodiment of figures 5 and 6. However, claim 1 has been amended to include that the toolkit is movably coupled to the ladder with a sliding bracket, which is a separate embodiment, shown in figures 1-4. As a result, claims 1 and 2 are now directed to a non-existent embodiment that is not described in the original disclosure; one where the tool kit is the top rung, integrally formed with and non-removable from the ladder, but also slidably coupled to the ladder with a sliding bracket beneath a top rung.
Similarly, claim 3 has been amended to include the sliding bracket, of the embodiment of figures 1-4, but claim 4 still claims the tool kit is coupled to the ladder with hooks, which appear in the embodiment of figures 5-6.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2 and 4 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 is indefinite as it is now directed to a tool kit that is both the top rung and slidable out from underneath itself, blurring the boundaries of what the top rung and tool kit actually comprise.
Claim 2 recites that toolkit is integral with and nonremovable from the ladder, which contradicts claim 1 which has been amended to recite that the toolkit is movably coupled to the ladder with a sliding bracket that enables the toolkit to slide out from under the top rung.
Similarly, claim 3 has been amended to include the sliding bracket, of the embodiment of figures 1-4, but claim 4 still claims the tool kit is coupled to the ladder with hooks, which appear in the embodiment of figures 5-6, leading to indefiniteness in how the tool kit is connecting to the ladder.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Due to the amendments in claim 3, claim 5 now fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 5,971,102) in view of Esposito et al. (US 10,543,592), as best understood in light of the above rejections.
Re: Claims 1-2
Brown discloses:
1. A ladder and tool kit combination (figure 14) comprising:
the ladder having at least one climbing rung (22, figure 14);
a front ladder section (12, 12, 22; figure 14);
a rear ladder section (14, 14, 40, 42, figure 14); and
a top rung (top surface 50 of 114) formed of a tool kit (114, figure 14), wherein the front ladder section is pivotably connected to the rear ladder section via the tool kit top rung (col. 6, line 65- col. 7, line 7), wherein the tool kit (114, figure 14) includes a tool kit main body (figure 12) storing tools within the tool kit main body (col. 7, lines 11-15), and wherein the tool kit is moveably coupled to the ladder (at least drawer 116 of the tool kit is movable) such that the tool kit (at least drawer 116 of tool kit) is movable between a stowed position (closed) located between the top rung (top surface 50 of tool kit 114) and a next adjacent lower rung (49) and a useable position (open) where the tool kit (at least drawer 116) slides out from under the top rung (figure 14, see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
634
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Brown does not does disclose wherein the tool kit is moveably coupled to the ladder with a sliding bracket.
However, Esposito et al. teach the toolkit (tool drawer 60) movably coupled with a sliding bracket (56, fig 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
640
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the toolkit of Brown with a sliding bracket, as taught by Esposito et al., to smoothly guide tool drawer 116 of Brown in and out of the main body 114, so as to provide a slidable drawer movable without misalignment or jamming of the drawer, and therfore avoiding potential pinching of a user’s fngers, and/or accidental spiling of tools stored in the drawer.
Re: claim 2, Brown discloses: wherein the tool kit is integral with (figure 14) and non-removable from the ladder (upon latching of securing components; figure 3 unsecured, figure 2 secured).
Re: Claims 3-7
Brown discloses:
3. A method of using a ladder (10) and tool kit (116) combination (figure 14) wherein the tool kit (116) is movably coupled to the ladder comprising:
moving the tool kit (116; figure 14) from a stowed position (figure 13) to a useable position (figure 12), wherein the tool kit (116) is movably coupled to the ladder (figure 14) enabling the toolkit to slide out from under the top rung (50) while remaining positioned between the top rung (50) and a next adjacent lower rung (49) of the ladder (figure 2), wherein the toolkit (116) is located under a top rung (50) of the ladder in the stowed position (closed) between the top rung (50) and the next adjacent lower rung (49) without extending beyond dimensions of the ladder (116 is flush with front surface of 114 when closed) and moved out from under the top rung (50) of the ladder when in the usable position (figure 14);
accessing tools stored within a tool kit main body of the tool kit (figure 14);
placing the tools within the tool kit main body after use of the tools (if tools are retained in the compartments 120, they were inevitably placed there at some point); and
moving the tool kit from the useable position (fig 12) to the stowed position (fig 13), wherein moving the tool kit between the stowed position and the usable position occurs when the ladder is in a folded or unfolded position (figure 14, see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
634
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Brown does not does disclose wherein the tool kit is moveably coupled to the ladder with a sliding bracket.
However, Esposito et al. teach the toolkit (tool drawer 60) movably coupled with a sliding bracket (56, fig 1, see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
640
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the toolkit of Brown with a sliding bracket, as taught by Esposito et al., to smoothly guide tool drawer 116 of Brown in and out of the main body 114, so as to provide a slidable drawer movable without misalignment or jamming of the drawer, and therfore avoiding potential pinching of a user’s fngers, and/or accidental spiling of tools stored in the drawer.
Re: claim 4, Brown discloses: wherein the tool kit is coupled to the ladder with hooks (114 which holds 116 is coupled to the ladder via 60, 74; figure 3).
Re: claim 4, Esposito et al. teach, wherein the tool kit is coupled to the ladder with a sliding bracket (see rejection of claim 3 above; note: this claim does not further limit claim 3).
Re: claims 6-7, while Brown discloses storing a number of tools and supplies various/slots in the top rung of the ladder (figure 13), Brown does not disclose further comprising removably coupling a mobile computing device to a slot in the top rung of the ladder. However, Esposito et al. teach:
6. removably coupling a mobile computing device (smartphone) to a slot (between jaws 148a, 148b; figure 10) in the top of the top stand (figure 3).
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising accessing the mobile computing device for audio and/or video of instructions (column 1, lines 44-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of using a ladder and tool kit combination of Brown, removably coupling a mobile device to a slot in the top of the assembly, as taught by Esposito et al., so as to allow a user to access repair instructions or other media that might be helpful while performing their assigned tasks.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Esposito et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Austin et al. (US 10,041,297). Brown does not disclose connecting a power port to a power supply with a cable extending through a leg of the ladder.
However, Austin et al. teaches:
8. further comprising connecting a power port to a power supply (500) with a cable extending through a leg of the ladder (figure 1 and col. 2, lines 40-47).
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising plugging a powered device (power tool) into the power port of the ladder (figure 1 and col. 2, lines 40-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of using a ladder and tool kit of Brown in view of Esposito et al, connecting a power port to a power supply with a cable extending through a leg of the ladder as taught by Austin et al. so as to provide a power source at elevation with the workman, to avoid unnecessary trips up and down the ladder and/or relying on battery powered tools which may wear out after some application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s primary argument is that the prior art reference of Brown does not teach “wherein the tool kit is movably coupled to the ladder with a sliding bracket that enables the toolkit to be moved between a stowed position located between the top rung and a next adjacent lower rung in the usable position for the toolkit slides out from under the top rung” as recited in amended independent claim 1, and similar language thereto in independent claim 3.
In response, examiner points out that in light of the amendments to claim 1 and claim 3, both of the independent claims are now rejected under Brown in view of Esposito et al., wherein the secondary reference teaches a tool drawer movably coupled by a sliding bracket, enabling the tool drawer to be moved between a stowed position located under a top surface, and the usable position for the tool drawer slides out from under the top surface. As noted in the above rejections it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the toolkit of Brown with a sliding bracket, as taught by Esposito et al., to smoothly guide tool drawer 116 of Brown in and out of the main body 114, so as to provide a slidable drawer movable without misalignment or jamming of the drawer, and therfore avoiding potential pinching of a user’s fngers, and/or accidental spiling of tools stored in the drawer.
Applicant also argues that Brown’s toolbox 48 forms the top step 49 and therefore the toolbox is not positioned between the top rung and a next adjacent lower rung in the stowed position, as now claimed However, as advanced in the above rejection, examiner points to 50 as the top rung of the ladder, and 49 as the next adjacent lower rung, wherein the tool kit, 116, is positioned between top rung 50 and the next adjacent lower rung 49.
For at least these reasons applicant’s remarks are not found persuasive in the claims remain rejected as advanced above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art of DeLuca have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on this reference.
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