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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1a and 2b as shown in figs 5a and 13 in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment dated 11/10/2025 has been entered. Drawings New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings filed 05/05/2022 are not proper black and white line drawings. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the upper and lower trolley are ganged together by a cable as claimed in claim 38 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 21, 23-25, and 32-45 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 21 recites in part “ (b) a platform assembly comprising ( i ) a standing platform, (ii) an optional seat spaced apart from the standing platform, and (iii) a frame connecting the seat to the standing platform; ”. It is unclear as to whether the seat is required to satisfy the limitations of the claim, as it is recited to be optional. It is further unclear as to how the frame would connect the seat to the standing platform in the event that the seat is optionally excluded. Claims 23-25 and 32-45 are at least rejected for depending from rejected claim 1. Dependent claims contain all limitations of the claims from which they depend, and therefore inherit their clarity issues. Claim 35 recites “the slide fob”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 21 , 24, 32, 33, and 36-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779. Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is broader in a way as to allow the patented claim to read on it . Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is broader in a way as to allow the patented claim to read on it . Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is broader in a way as to allow the patented claim to read on it . Claim 33 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is broader in a way as to allow the patented claim to read on it . Claim 36 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is broader in a way as to allow the patented claim to read on it . Claim 37 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is broader in a way as to allow the patented claim to read on it . Claim 38 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is broader in a way as to allow the patented claim to read on it . Claim 39 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is broader in a way as to allow the patented claim to read on it . Claim 40 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is broader in a way as to allow the patented claim to read on it . Claim s 23, and 41-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 in view of US Pat. 9,527,712 – Pigg et al., hereinafter Pigg . Regarding claim 23. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 teaches all limitations of claim 21. The claims do not teach each of the plurality of mast segments is a ladder mast segment. However, Pigg teaches each of the plurality of mast segments (column 4, line 31; The ladder 28 also is sectionalized ) is a ladder mast segment (See fig 1) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art , with a reasonable expectation of success , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 1 with the ladder mast segments of Pigg . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of enhancing the strength of the mast segments . Regarding claim 41. The combination of Claim 1 and Pigg teaches all limitations of claim 23. The claims do not teach the ladder mast segment includes a pair of parallel and spaced apart squared rails extending upward and connected by a plurality of horizontal bridge segments. However, Pigg teaches the ladder mast segment (28, fig 2) includes a pair of parallel and spaced apart squared rails (30 and 32, fig 2) extending upward and connected by a plurality of horizontal bridge segments (56, fig 2) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art , with a reasonable expectation of success , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 1 with the squared rails and bridge segments of Pigg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of enhancing the strength of the mast segments. Regarding claim 42. The combination of Claim 1 and Pigg teaches all limitations of claim 41. The claims do not teach the upper trolley is a ladder trolley assembly and the handle is a ladder catch handle, wherein the ladder trolley assembly includes a catch configured to engage each of the plurality of horizontal bridge segments as the ladder trolley assembly moves upward along the ladder mast segment. However, Pigg teaches the upper trolley (40, fig 3) is a ladder trolley assembly and the handle ( 86 , fig 4 ) is a ladder catch handle (See fig 4) , wherein the ladder trolley assembly includes a catch (36, fig 4) configured to engage each of the plurality of horizontal bridge segments as the ladder trolley assembly moves upward along the ladder mast segment (See fig 4) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art , with a reasonable expectation of success , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 1 with the trolley and catches of Pigg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of enhancing the safety of the trolley. Regarding claim 43. The combination of Claim 1 and Pigg teaches all limitations of claim 42. The claims do not teach the ladder trolley assembly includes a squared bracket portion configured to engage around the squared rails. However, Pigg teaches the ladder trolley assembly includes a squared bracket portion (See 64 and 72, figs 3 and 4) configured to engage around the squared rails (See figs 3 and 4) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art , with a reasonable expectation of success , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 1 with the squared rails and bridge segments of Pigg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of enhancing the strength of the interface between the trolley and the mast segments. Regarding claim 44. The combination of Claim 1 and Pigg teaches all limitations of claim 41. The claims do not teach each ladder mast segment includes a lower section wherein each squared rail is reduced in size or tapered to mate with and engage with an upper section of an adjacent ladder mast segment thus allowing for vertical stacking. However, Pigg teaches h each ladder mast segment (28, fig 2) includes a lower section wherein each squared rail is reduced in size (See tab at lower end of 28 in fig 2) or tapered to mate with and engage with an upper section of an adjacent ladder mast segment thus allowing for vertical stacking (See figs 1 and 2) . Claim s 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 in view of PG Pub. US 2019/0269245 A1 – Pope. Regarding claim 25 . Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 teaches all limitations of claim 21. The claims do not teach the frame of the platform assembly is a single post mounted to the lower trolley. However, Pope teaches the frame (14, fig 1) of the platform assembly is a single post mounted to the lower trolley (See fig 1) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art , with a reasonable expectation of success , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 1 with the frame post of Pope. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of reducing the weight of the frame. Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 in view of PG Pub. US 2018/0100351 A1 – Bright. Regarding claim 34. Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 teaches all limitations of claim 33. The claims do not teach the plurality of mast segments includes a plurality of adjustable mast segments having a slide fob configured to move the lower end up and down within the mast segment for adjustability and removal of the adjustable mast segment without disassembling the mast. However, Bright teaches the plurality of mast segments includes a plurality of adjustable mast segments having a slide fob ( 121, fig3) configured to move the lower end up and down within the mast segment (at 120c, fig 3) for adjustability and removal of the adjustable mast segment without disassembling the mast (examiner notes that this is intended use) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art , with a reasonable expectation of success , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 8 with the slide fob of Bright. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing adjustability and removal of the adjustable mast segment . Claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 in view of Bright, and in further view of Examiner’s Official Notice. Regarding claim 35. Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 teaches all limitations of claim 33. The claims do not teach the slide fob is configured for adjustability up and down of about 2 inches. However, Bright teaches the slide fob is configured for adjustability up and down (See threaded portion in fig 3) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art , with a reasonable expectation of success , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 8 with the slide fob of Bright. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing adjustability and removal of the adjustable mast segment . The Examiner takes Official Notice that i t would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art , with a reasonable expectation of success , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of claim 8 and Bright by making the adjustment range of the slide fob approximately 2 inches. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing adjustability and removal of the adjustable mast segment . Claim 45 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s of U.S. Patent No. 11,311,779 in view of US Pat. 9,527,712 – Pigg et al., hereinafter Pigg as applied to claim 41 above, and in further view of US Pat. 11,229,200 – Gardner . Regarding claim 45. The combination of Claim 1 and Pigg teaches all limitations of claim 41. The combination does not teach an optional tilt bracket . However, Gardner teaches an optional tilt bracket (14, fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art , with a reasonable expectation of success , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of claim 1 and Pigg with the tilt bracket of Gardner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the frame to tilt to accommodate the lean of the tree . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOHN W HANES JR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8840 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-5 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Daniel Cahn can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /J.W.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3634 /DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634